Among the various schemes which have been devised for checking the alarming progress of pauperism in England, and which have been recommended as contributing to the comfort and happiness of the lower classes, in every stage of society, few seem to have obtained a greater degree of popularity, or to be more generally patronised, than the cottage system—that system which proposes, under certain restrictions, to furnish the industrious poor with cottages and small pieces of land, to be used either for the purpose of keeping a cow, or of raising potatoes, or for some other species of husbandry.

It is not our intention, in this article, to detail the various peculiarities and modifications involved in the plans of the different authors by whom the efficacy of the cottage system has been maintained. We shall content ourselves with examining the accuracy of the fundamental principles on which the whole scheme is founded—and, in so doing, shall endeavour to resolve the important question—whether the more minute division of landed property, and the letting of small farms and patches of ground, to any considerable portion of the lower classes, would have any tendency to improve the condition and charac- ter of the bulk of the people, and to reduce the sum total of human misery?

As the effects of the cottage, or small farming system, on the condition of the poor, must, in a great measure, depend on the fact of its having a tendency to increase or diminish the exchangeable value of raw produce, it will be necessary, first of all, to inquire into its probable operation in this respect. If it has a tendency to reduce the price of corn, cattle, &c. and to render their acquisition less difficult, that will afford a strong ground of recommendation in its favour. But, on the other hand, if the cottage system has any tendency to raise the price of these commodities, and to make them exchange for a greater quantity of labour, its introduction would obviously be prejudicial to the interests of the entire community, and especially to those of the labouring classes.

We have already endeavoured to explain how the price of raw produce has a natural tendency to rise, as society advances, and as a country becomes more populous. (Principles of the Corn Laws.) The best lands being first brought under cultivation, recourse is afterwards had to those of an inferior quality, requiring a greater quantity of labour to yield the same produce. The real price of that produce, which must always be regulated by the quantity of labour necessary to its production, is therefore increased; and it will henceforth exchange for a greater portion of those commodities, the production of which has not also become more difficult.

Had the inventive genius of man been limited in its powers, and had the ploughs, and harrows, and other machines and implements used in agriculture, at once attained their utmost degree of perfection, and ever after remained in the same state, the rise in the price of raw produce, consequent on the increase of population, would have been rendered much more apparent and obvious. When, in such a state of things, it became necessary to resort to poorer soils to raise an additional quantity of food, a corresponding increase of manual labour would have been required. On this hypothesis no improvement could take place in the powers of the labourer himself. Having already reached the perfection of his art, a greater degree of animal exertion could alone overcome fresh obstacles,—more labour would be necessary to the production of a greater quantity of food,—and it would be necessary in the precise proportion according to which the quantity of food had been increased. Thus, supposing the labour of ten men to have been previously required to produce ten quarters of wheat, in any given period, from land of a certain quality,—when fifteen quarters were produced in the same period, and from the same land, we should at once know that fifteen hands had been employed in its production. The effects of improved machinery are here entirely out of the question. And were it possible for the arts to continue in this stationary state, the price of raw produce would directly vary with every variation in the quality of the soils, successively brought under cultivation.

But, in an improving society, the circumstances regulating the real and exchangeable values of raw produce are extremely different. Here, too, it no doubt has a constant tendency to rise: For, notwithstanding that every successive improvement in agriculture, and every new device by which labour can be saved, and the energies and powers of machinery augmented, has a direct tendency to lower prices,—still the rise of profits, and consequent stimulus given to the principle of population, by every fall in the price of raw produce, by increasing the demand, and again forcing the cultivation of poorer soils, must in the end raise its relative value. But this rise is rendered much less perceptible than it would be in a stationary state of society. After inferior soils have been brought under cultivation, more labourers will probably be required to raise the same quantities of food, but as the powers of the labourers themselves will be augmented, a smaller number will be required, in proportion to the whole work to be performed, than if no such improvements had taken place. It is in this way that the natural tendency to an increase in the price of raw produce is counteracted in the progress of society. The productive energies of the earth itself gradually diminish, and we are compelled to resort to soils of a constantly decreasing degree of fertility; but the productive energy of the labour employed in extracting produce from these soils, is as constantly improved. Two directly opposite and continually acting principles are thus set in motion. From the operation of causes to which we have alluded, the increasing sterility of the soil must, in the long-run, overmatch the increasing power of machinery, and the improvements of agriculture, and prices must experience a corresponding rise. Occasionally, however, improvements in the latter more than compensate for any deterioration in the quality of the former, and a fall of prices is the consequence. And should an equilibrium take place, and the opposite principles exactly counterpoise each other, prices would remain stationary.

Had the whole surface of the earth been originally of the same degree of fertility, and had an equal expenditure of capital and labour always continued to yield the same amount of raw produce, these effects of the improvement of machinery, and of the saving of labour in reducing its price, would have been quite palpable and obvious. Had this been the case, the exchangeable value of raw produce must have invariably fallen as society advanced. There would then have been no principle left to counteract the effects of agricultural improvements. The quantity of labour necessary for the production of every species of commodities would, because of the improvement of machinery, have been almost always diminishing; and, of course, their real price would have been as constantly on the decline.

It results, as a consequence of these principles, that any constitution of society, or any method of dividing landed property, which should have the effect of counteracting this improvement, or which should prevent agriculturists adopting the most efficacious methods for saving labour and expense in the raising of raw produce, would be materially injurious.

The rate of profit, and consequently the power to accumulate capital and population, is ultimately regulated by the price of raw produce. If its price is relatively low, that is, if it is easily produced, a comparatively small expenditure of labour will suffice to obtain a large quantity of produce. If, in a country thus circumstanced, property is protected, and full scope given to accumulation, the national wealth will rapidly increase. Where labour is more than ordinarily productive, although the labourer receives a large share of the produce of his own exertions, a large net profit will also remain for his employer. In America labour is extremely well rewarded, but the profits of stock are, notwithstanding, much higher than in Europe. The choice of immense tracts of fertile and unoccupied land, relieves the farmers of the United States from the necessity of cultivating any but the richest soils. The wants of the country can be supplied without having recourse to lands of an inferior quality; and, although the wages of workmen are comparatively high, yet, as their labour is proportionally productive, capitalists realize a corresponding and ample profit.

The increased difficulty of raising raw produce, is the principal cause why all old settled and fully peopled countries advance slowly in the accumulation of capital and riches, and why the profits of their stock are comparatively low. Were it not, however, for the improvements which are constantly making in agriculture, this difficulty would be greatly increased. By enabling us partially to overcome the increasing sterility of the soil, improvements reduce the cost of production, or the real price of raw produce; and, by this means, the rate of profit, and consequently the power to accumulate wealth and population, is prevented from falling so low as it would do in a state of society, where such improvements could not be made.

But such, we apprehend, must necessarily be the situation of every country in which a minute division of landed property, or a generally extended cottage system, has been introduced. The produce of a small farm of five, ten, or even twenty acres, may perhaps enable its occupier to preserve his family from downright starvation, but it will never enable him to accumulate stock to any extent. "Where," asks Mr Young, "is the little farmer to be found who will cover his whole farm with marl, at the rate of 100 to 150 tons per acre? who will drain all his land at the expense of two or three pounds an acre? who will pay a heavy price for the manure of towns, and convey it 30 miles by land-carriage? who will float his meadows at the expense of L5 per acre? who, to improve the breed of his sheep, will give 1000 guineas for the use of a single ram for a single season? who will send across the kingdom to distant provinces for new implements, and for men to use them? who employ and pay men for residing in provinces where practices are found which they want to introduce into their farms? At the very mention of such exertions, common in England, what mind can be so perversely framed as to imagine, for a single moment, that such things are to be effected by little farmers? Deduct from agriculture all the practices that have made it flourishing in this island, and you have precisely the management of small farms." (Travels in France, 2d edition, Vol. I. p. 410.) Besides, if it were to be admitted that small farmers might accumulate capital, they could not apply it in the most efficient manner. "The division of labour, which, in every pursuit of industry, gives skill and dispatch, cannot take place on the greatest farms in the degree in which it is found in manufactures; but, upon small farms it does not take place at all. The same man by turns applies to every work of the farm; upon the larger occupation there are ploughmen, threshers, hedgers, shepherds, cow herds, ox-herds, lime-burners, drainers, &c. This circumstance is of considerable importance, and decides, that every work will be better performed on a large than on a small farm. One of the greatest engines of good farming, a sheep-fold, is either to be found on a large farm only, or at an expense of labour which destroys the profit." (Travels in France, Vol. I. p. 409.)

Neither could a small farmer make use of any but the simplest machines, and he must, in a great measure, be prevented from availing himself of the powers of the lower animals. An Irish cottager could not employ either a thrashing-machine or a horse. Manual labour only can enable him to extract produce from the earth. He cannot avail himself of natural agents, or render them subservient to the great work of production. That principle which, in countries where capital is accumulating in masses, and where the powers of machinery are every day rendered more efficient, tends to reduce the price of raw produce, and to render the necessaries of life attainable by a less expenditure of labour, is altogether incompatible with a minute division of landed property. Whatever additional supplies of food are required in a kingdom divided into small occupancies, can be produced only by a proportional increase of animal exertion. And raw produce must, therefore, rise in price with every increase of population, or as soon as it becomes necessary to cultivate any portion of inferior soils. There is, in this case, nothing left to counteract increasing sterility. It is neither checked by improved machinery, nor by any expedients for saving labour. But, being allowed to exert its full effect, society very soon becomes clogged in its progress; and its future advancement is rendered extremely problematical.

This, we conceive, constitutes a fundamental objection to every attempt to introduce a plan for dividing landed property into minute portions. For, surely nothing can be more preposterously absurd than to think of relieving the hardships and distresses of the poor, by recommending the adoption of a scheme, which would infallibly tend to raise the price of the principal necessaries of life.

But a minute division of landed property is not merely disadvantageous, from its having a tendency to raise the price of raw produce; by preventing the most advantageous distribution of capital and labour, it must also exercise a powerful effect on In a country such as England, where an improved system of husbandry is generally introduced, where farms are extensive, and where the most improved machinery is employed in agricultural operations, a comparatively small proportion of the inhabitants is engaged in the cultivation of the soil. The rest are employed in manufacturing, in carrying the products of the different districts of the kingdom to where they are in the greatest request, and in exchanging them for the products of other countries. By this means, the national wealth and the comforts of all classes are augmented. Farmers are no longer obliged to spend their time in clumsy attempts to manufacture their own raw produce; and manufacturers cease to interest themselves about the raising of corn and the fattening of cattle. In an improved state of society, every class can bestow its undivided attention on some particular department of industry. Labour is not only economized, but it is perseveringly and judiciously applied. Agriculturists are stimulated to raise large crops, because they know they can readily exchange them for a greater proportion of other commodities conducing to their enjoyments; while manufacturers are equally inclined to increase the quantity and to improve the quality of their wares, that they may be enabled to command a greater quantity of raw produce. As valuable or desirable objects are multiplied, greater efforts will be made to procure them. A spirit of industry and a desire to rise in the world will be universally diffused, and that apathy and languor which is natural to a stationary state of society, will be scarcely known.

"It is," says Dr Smith, "the great multiplication of the productions of the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people. Every workman has a great quantity of his own work to dispose of, beyond what he himself has occasion for; and every other workman being exactly in the same situation, he is enabled to exchange a great quantity of his own goods for a great quantity, or, what comes to the same thing, for the price of a great quantity of theirs. He supplies them abundantly with what they have occasion for, and they accommodate him as amply with what he has occasion for, and a general plenty diffuses itself through all the different ranks of society."

But if a country were generally divided into small farms, these effects could only take place in a very limited extent. Where a great proportion of the inhabitants are directly supported by the produce of the soil, it is obvious that there must be less of that produce to support other classes. Agriculturists will not then have it in their power to purchase any considerable quantity of manufactured goods; nor will manufacturers have it in their power to purchase a large share of the produce of the soil. Neither capital nor labour could, in such circumstances, be employed in the most advantageous manner; and that division of labour, to whose effects Dr Smith has justly ascribed the greater part of the improvement of society, would only be partially introduced. A considerable portion of the coarser sorts of manufactured commodities would then be prepared, though at a much greater expense, at home; for the small surplus of agricultural produce that would remain, after satisfying the wants of the cultivators, would be barely sufficient to produce such necessaries as could not be produced by the rude efforts of agricultural labourers. Being obliged to engage by turns in every different employment, workmen would be prevented from acquiring a proper degree of dexterity in any.* But as it is by the quantity of labour expended on a commodity, that its exchangeable value is regulated, it is obvious that, with a minute division of landed property, not only the price of raw produce, but of every species of manufactured commodities, would be increased. Labour would, therefore, become proportionably less powerful in procuring them, and hence the situation of the great body of the people, who have only labour to give in exchange for commodities, would be rendered comparatively wretched. No person would have any, or but very little surplus produce to dispose of; and instead of general opulence, we should meet with nothing but universal poverty. "The tendency of such a system," says an able and intelligent writer who had carefully observed its effects, "is to approximate man to the state of the savage, where the insulated being is obliged to supply himself by his own labour with everything that his situation may require."

It deserves to be mentioned, that a minute division of landed property, by preventing the general extension and improvement of manufactures, renders the Occupiers of Land entirely dependent on the Landed Property.

* "In Ireland, the minute division of land, and the manner in which the inhabitants are scattered over the country, render it necessary for labour of various kinds to be combined in the same individual; and thus each family becomes the manufacturers of their own clothing, and of every thing else which they use. Most of the raw materials being supplied either by their flocks, or the produce of their land, they are better able to continue this system, and to dispense with the use of articles imported or made by regular workmen. In arts carried on in this manner, improvement is impossible; and while the same system exists, no taste can be excited for a superior mode of life, nor will much encouragement be given to the establishment of manufactories. Except in the cotton branches, and in the curing of provisions, this pernicious system is everywhere observed: it pervades all ranks, from the nobleman, who makes his own candles, cultivates his own patch of flax, and has it spun by his servants, to the cotter, whose wife and daughters spin and manufacture the frieze and woollen stuffs which serve them as clothing." (Wakefield's Account of Ireland, Vol. I. p. 760.) Cottage System

Cottage System, would render the occupiers of land almost entirely dependent on its proprietors. Those farmers who had incurred the displeasure of their landlords, would not be able to betake themselves to another employment, and would be obliged to submit to every species of indignity. The state of society, during the middle-ages, approached, in some respects, very near to this; and, it should be remembered, that the division of labour, and the general extension of commerce and manufactures, has been still more beneficial, from its having effected the abolition of villainage, and removed the grinding oppression of feudal tyranny, than from its having multiplied the comforts and conveniencies of life. Nor is it less certain, that every discovery of a new channel into which productive industry may be advantageously turned, must afford an additional guarantee for the permanent enjoyment of our personal freedom and independence. By enlarging the field of employment, and adding to the means of acquiring an independent livelihood, while it increases the comforts of every individual, it also renders them less liable to be affected by derangements in any particular branch of business; or by the errors, partialities, whims, and caprices, of those in authority.

It is impossible that the prizes in the lottery of human life can be too much multiplied. The greater the variety of ways by which men can rise to eminence, the greater will be the efforts made to rise. In a country where full scope is given to the accumulation of property, the mind of every individual, even of those in the humblest walks of life, is cheered with the idea, that, by industry and economy, he may better his situation, emerge from obscurity, and attain to opulence. But in an essentially agricultural society, and where the greater part of the population are directly supported on the produce of the soil, there can be little variety of condition. In a country thus circumstanced capital could not be accumulated, large cities could not exist, and the liberal arts and professions, which chiefly depend on them for protection and support, and to which they owe their birth, would neither be patronised nor indulged in. It is not to be imagined, that cultivators, engrossed, as small farmers must constantly be, with the thoughts of providing for their present wants, should pay any attention to schemes of general or prospective improvement. Such men have no sufficient motive to stimulate them to exertion; and a perpetual sameness, like that of China, or, at most, a nearly imperceptible progress, is all that could be there expected, and is all that would take place. It is only in countries like America or England, that the energies of man, as well as those of the soil, can be developed in their full extent. The diversity of the objects of pursuit, will there give ample room for gratifying the diversity of dispositions; while the applause consequent on any invention that either extends the power of man over the physical world, or enlarges his intellectual faculties, will perpetuate the discoveries made and the spirit which makes them.

A great part of the misconceptions and erroneous opinions to be met with respecting the cottage system, appear to have originated in hasty and premature attempts at generalization, founded on a few limited observations of its local effects. But first appearances are, in this case, of all others the most fallacious. The effects observed to result from the partial granting of cottages, furnish no clue to trace the ultimate consequences of their general introduction. These effects are, on the contrary, of an entirely different character, and are eminently calculated to mislead. Were cottages, with small pieces of ground attached to each, let at a moderate rent to a few of the most industrious labourers in the best cultivated districts of Great Britain, there can be no doubt, but that the circumstances of those individuals would, in the first instance, be ameliorated. They would acquire these possessions with previously formed habits of industry and economy. When their own little farm did not require their exertions, they would be able to find employment in the more extensive farms in their vicinity; and, in return for their labour, they would be able to procure the ploughs, harrows, and carts of their neighbours to assist them in their different operations. The labour of such men would thus be employed with nearly the same effect that it would have been had they continued as farm-servants on estates managed in the first style. It is even probable, that their exertions would at first be rather increased; inasmuch as a part of the labour necessary for the cultivation of the small farm would be executed at extra hours, and after the ordinary day's labour had been performed.

But the truth of this statement is nowise inconsistent with the truth of the principles we have been endeavouring to establish. The ultimate and necessary consequences of a minute division of landed property deserve to be as much attended to, as those which are only immediate and transitory.

In the first place, then, it is extremely probable, that the small farmers would, ere long, become disgusted with that life of unremitting exertion which they had formerly led. It is natural to suppose, that, having attained to a state of comparative independence, and not being under the necessity of constantly employing themselves, occasional intervals of relaxation would take place. However small we may conceive the possession of the cottager to be, he would still have some species of produce to dispose of. A habit would, in this way, be formed of going to market, and time would be lost in the adjusting of trifling bargains. "Nothing," as Mr Young has justly remarked, "can be more absurd, than a strong hearty man walking some miles, and losing a day's work, in order to sell a dozen of eggs or a chicken, the value of which would not be equal to the labour of conveying it, if he were properly employed." Such habits, too, are almost sure to lead to dissipation. The small farmer must have his porter and his gin as well as the extensive farmer. It is the want of time and opportunity, still more than the want of money, that prevents a hired labourer from having it in his power to ape the conduct of his employers. The circumstances, too, which distinguish a farm-servant from a farmer, are much better defined, and more easily appreciated, than those which distinguish a small farmer from an... The latter are both placed, if we may use the expression, in the same cast; and hence the extravagances of the small farmer, though equally hurtful to himself and his family with those of a labourer, are much less an object of animadversion in the neighbourhood. They clash less with popular prejudices, and with the received opinions of mankind, and there is, therefore, a greater probability of their being more indulged in.

If these consequences of the introduction of small farms, should not become obvious in the lifetime of the first occupiers, they would certainly discover themselves in that of their successors. Not having undergone the same rigid training with their fathers, the habits and prejudices of the two races would be essentially different. And the character of the industrious labourer, which had predominated in the first, would, in the second, give place to that of the half employed, petty, farmer.

But, in the second place, it is obvious, that the beneficial effects observed to result from the first introduction of small farms, depend almost entirely on the occupiers of these farms or patches of ground, having it in their power to employ themselves at other work when their labour is not necessary at home. Now, with a generally extended cottage system, this could not be the case. Where all the farms are small, none would require the labour of extra hands, nor would they afford their own possessors constant employment, except, perhaps, during seedtime and harvest. Nor is it to be imagined, that the leisure of a poor cottager, thus situated, should have anything in common with the leisure of an extensive farmer or capitalist. The cottager is inactive, not because he has already realized an ample fund to support him in a state of comfortable independence, but he is inactive because no exertions can better his fortune, and because there is no demand for his labour. No man, it should be recollected, loves either exertion or industry for their own sakes. All have some end in view, some object to effect, and the accomplishment of which is to compensate for the toils and privations to which they may at present submit. But a small farmer is almost entirely cut off from all hope of rising in society. No person possessed of capital would ever think of embarking in such a hopeless concern; and after supporting a family, no small farmer, originally without capital, would ever be able to accumulate any. As it is impossible for him to escape from poverty, the cottager, naturally, becomes indolent, careless, and relaxed in his habits. His opinions of what is necessary to his comfortable subsistence become degraded; and he ultimately sinks into a state of apathy, and of sluggish and stupid indifference.

That such is really the state of society in every country in which landed property is divided into minute portions, is abundantly certain. But we have no occasion to go from home to seek for an exemplification of its effects. We have only to turn to Ireland. The cottage system has there been submitted to the test of experiment, and it is proper that the result should be generally known.

In our inquiry into the principles of the corn laws, we have endeavoured to show how the granting of high bounties on the exportation of corn from Ireland, in 1780 and 1784, contributed to the extension of tillage, and to the breaking up of the pasture grounds in that kingdom. But the want of capital, and the consequent impossibility of procuring tenants capable of taking large farms, obliged the proprietors to divide their lands into small portions. Large tracts of old grass land were ploughed up, and let in farms of from ten to twenty acres: and in this way the stimulus, intended to act as an incitement to agricultural improvement, has had a much more powerful effect in causing the subdivision of farms, and in increasing the merely agricultural population of the country.

Mr Newenham's authority is decisive as to this fact. "Large farms," he informs us, "of from 500 to 1500 and 2000 acres, once so common in Ireland, hold actually no sort of proportion to farms of from 10 to 30 or 40 acres. In the county of Down, Mr Dubedieu says, that farms run from 20 to 40, 50, and in some instances as far as 100 acres. Such is the case in most other parts of Ireland. For several years past the landlords of that county have been much in the habit of letting their lands in small divisions. Besides this, the cotter system, or the giving a certain quantity of land as an equivalent for wages, prevails throughout most parts of Ireland. In fact, upwards of four-fifths of the Irish people are subsisted chiefly on the produce of the land which they hold." (Inquiry into the Population of Ireland, p. 270.)

Every part of Mr Wakefield's valuable work on Ireland, abounds with interesting information respecting the effects produced by this minute division of landed property. Our limits, however, will only permit our extracting the following passages.

When noticing the state of landed property in the county of Kerry, Mr Wakefield observes: "Few persons here occupy such a quantity of land as to oblige them to employ a labourer; it is not, therefore, customary for people to go from their own homes to work, and, indeed, none but those who have taken very dear farms, and experience the necessity of procuring a little ready money, ever think of it. This system, considered in a public point of view, strikes me as being exceedingly injurious. A country occupied by inhabitants whose ambition is so limited, that they have no desire to push their industry beyond that indolent exertion which procures them the bare necessaries of life, must remain without improvement. Such people cannot be said to live, but to exist; to supply their animal wants is the chief object of their labour, and if they can raise money enough, by the sale of butter and pigs, to pay their rent, all their care and anxiety is ended. The existence, however, of these wretched beings, depends entirely on the season; for if their potatoe crop fails, they are in danger of being starved. This mode of life, instead of elevating the moral faculties in the slightest degree, tends only to depress and degrade them. It becomes the parent of idleness, the worst evil that can afflict human nature, and that habit, if it spreads or becomes general, must lead to national poverty, and even want, with its concomitants, vice and misery." (Account of Ireland, Vol. I, p. 262.) "In Fermanagh," says he, "whether it arises from habit, or a natural propensity to indolence, the people do not rise until a late hour in the morning, and the cows are not milked till noon. There being but a poor market for the produce of the earth, little encouragement is afforded to industry; they therefore seldom think of turning their time to the best advantage." (Account of Ireland, Vol. II. p. 745.)

In his chapter on rural economy, Mr Wakefield makes the following general observations: "The Irish cotters only anxiety is, that the butter and the pig sold, and the labour given to his landlord, may be equal in value to the payment which he has to make. When satisfied on this head, his mind is at rest; he has no further wants, and neither he nor his family consider labour as of any importance to their happiness. His potatoes are left in the ground till the commencement of frost makes him apprehend that his food may be locked up in the earth; and though very great inconvenience has been occasioned by this negligence, the repeated experiment of the bad result arising from it, has not yet been able to induce the peasantry of Ireland to adopt a better method. It is very common to hear persons of higher rank observe, when a very early frost takes place, that 'it is a fortunate event, as it will oblige the poor to dig up their potatoes;' (for the poor and the cultivator of the soil are here synonymous expressions,) and of course they will be saved before a severer one sets in." (Account of Ireland, Vol. I. p. 517 and 583.)

It is not necessary to quote authorities to prove the miserable state of the hovels, in which the cottagers reside. Notwithstanding his prejudices in favour of the state of society in Ireland, Mr Newenham admits, "that a bedstead is a luxury which a great majority of the Irish labouring poor are strangers to. And as for clocks, warming-pans, frying-pans, tea-kettles, cups and saucers, &c. &c. which we find in every cottage here, I believe it is unnecessary to say, that they never constitute a part of the poor Irishman's furniture." (Inquiry respecting the Population of Ireland, p. 280.)

We shall close these statements with an important extract from Mr Curwen's late work on Ireland. This experienced agriculturist travelled through the greater part of it in 1813; and after having carefully inquired into the condition of the small farmers and cottagers, gives the result of his investigation, in the following terms: "The size of farms, from 15 to 30 acres, would give an average of about 22 or 23 acres to each. Portions of these are again subset to cotters, whose rents are paid by labour done for the tenants; from whom they sometimes receive milk and some other necessaries. These running accounts are an endless source of dissatisfaction, of dispute, and of contention at the quarter-sessions. In some of the more populous parts of Ireland, there is supposed to be an inhabitant for every acre, while the cultivation of the soil, as now practised, does not afford employment for a third of that population. In the north, where the linen trade has been established, the lower classes are weavers, which gives them a great superiority over the southern districts. The labour on the highways and great roads, for which such large assessments are made on the counties, afford, for a portion of the year, a great source of employment.

"The minute subdivision of lands among these occupants is attended with many serious evils. The rents of these small sublet parcels become so high to the actual cultivators, as to preclude all profitable returns from their labour. It affords too great a facility to marriage. The population becomes increased beyond the capital of the country employed in husbandry, and the supernumerary individuals are compelled to subsist on the produce of others' labour, to which they have no power of contributing. The aggregate number of horses is greater than would be required, if the estates were distributed into moderately sized farms; while the want of farming buildings, besides other disadvantages, prevents the accumulation of manure.

"The labourers, with few exceptions, are all married. The farmers have no hired servants, of either sex, residing in their dwellings; this is another serious evil arising out of small farms. Ireland, which in extent is nearly equal to one half of Great Britain, does not probably employ one tenth of the agricultural servants.

"The buildings on every farm being erected at the expense of the tenant, are necessarily on the most limited scale, seldom more than a cabin, and this insufficient for the children of the family beyond their earliest days. As the children grow up, they are compelled to seek another establishment for themselves, and to hazard every consequence that may ensue. Alternative they have none. The interests of all parties suffer, and it would be for the advantage of the whole community to promote a radical reform of the present disreputable system."

Such are the ruinous effects produced by the small farming system! And such too, with some few exceptions, would be the effects of having a country parcelled out into small freehold properties. A few words will be sufficient to show the similarity of the cases.

First of all, it is obvious, that, in a country divided into small properties, the division of labour would be quite as inapplicable, as in a country occupied by small farmers. The proprietor of ten, twenty, or fifty acres, can as little afford to keep ploughmen, hedgers, thrashers, &c. as the person who holds them on lease. But whatever may be the capital of the occupier of a small farm, its size will not admit of its being farmed in such a manner as to yield the largest quantity of produce, with the least possible expenditure of labour.

Until very lately, it might have been contended, that, in a country occupied entirely by proprietors, raw produce would be sold at a cheaper rate than in one occupied by farmers, who, in addition to the expense of labour, would be also burdened with payment of rent. This, however, is not really the case. The price of raw produce, as well as of manufactured commodities, is regulated solely by the quantity of labour necessary to its production. Rent, it has been demonstrated, does not enter into price. Corn is not high because a rent is paid, but a rent... is paid because corn is high; and Mr Malthus has justly observed, that no reduction would take place in the price of corn, although landlords should forego the whole of their rent. Such a measure would only enable some farmers to live like gentlemen, but would not diminish the quantity of labour necessary to raise raw produce, on the least productive land in cultivation.

Although, therefore, it cannot be doubted, that the condition of the greater part of the occupiers of land, in a country divided into small proprietorships, would, on the whole, be preferable to their condition in a country divided into small farms, it is certain that the condition of every other class in society would be the same in both cases. The price of the produce raised by the small farmer and proprietor would be equally high. Neither of them would be able to bring their corn and cattle to market on the same reasonable terms as an extensive farmer. The profits of stock would, therefore, be rendered less than they would be in a country where agriculturists are enabled to adopt every expedient, by which labour can be saved, or rendered more efficient; and hence the power of the whole society to accumulate wealth and riches, would be proportionally diminished.

In the second place, small properties as well as small farms, have a strong tendency to increase the agricultural population of a country, in a ratio far exceeding the demand. A property of forty or fifty acres of good land, might support a single family in tolerably easy circumstances; but what is to become of their children? No country, it will be remembered, which is divided into small occupancies, can ever furnish a sufficient surplus produce, after satisfying the wants of the cultivators, to maintain a numerous body of merchants, manufacturers, handicraftsmen, &c. There can therefore be no demand for the surplus population, which an agricultural society is always producing; and the division of the paternal property is the only way in which families can be provided for. This, however, is only making bad worse. Forty or fifty acres of property are not incapable of pretty good cultivation; but twenty or twenty-five, and still more ten or twelve acres, must be ill cultivated. But in an essentially agricultural country, such, for example, as France, where the right of primogeniture is in a great measure unknown, and where landed properties are usually divided in equal portions among all the children, or at least among all the sons of a family, properties will very soon be reduced even below ten acres. They must, in fact, be perpetually lessening, until, to use the words of Mr Young, when pointing out the pernicious effects of this system in France, "you arrive at the limit, beyond which the earth, cultivate it as you please, will feed no more mouths; yet those simple manners, which instigate to marriage, still continue:—what then is the consequence, but the most dreadful imaginable! By persevering in this system, you soon would exceed the populousness of China, where the putrid carcasses of dogs, cats, rats, and every species of filth and vermin, are sought with avidity, to sustain the life of wretches who were born only to be starved. Small properties much divided prove the greatest source of misery that can possibly be conceived; and this has operated to such an extent and degree in France, that a law undoubtedly ought to be passed, to render all division, below a certain number of arpent, illegal."—(Travels in France, Vol. I. pp. 413, 414.)

The condition of the agricultural classes in France has been very much ameliorated since Mr Young visited that kingdom. The abolition of the feudal privileges of the nobility and clergy, and of the gabelle, the corvées, and other grievously oppressive and partial imposts and burdens, would of themselves have sufficed to render the condition of the farmers and small proprietors more respectable and comfortable. A great part, too, of the property of the church, and of the emigrants, came into their hands at extremely low prices. By this means small properties were augmented, and fresh energy and vigour was given to agricultural pursuits. Still, however, the too minute division of landed property, and the consequent excess of country population, forms the prime evil in the social condition of the people of France. "The population of that country," says Mr Birkbeck, "seems to be arranged thus: A town depends for subsistence on the lands immediately around it. The cultivators individually have not much to spare; because, as their husbandry is a sort of gardening, it requires a large country population, and has, in proportion, less superfluity of produce. Thus is formed a numerous but poor population. The cultivator receives payment of his surplus produce in sous, and he expends only sous. The tradesman is on a par with the farmer; as they receive so they expend; and thus 50,000 persons may inhabit a district, with a town of 10,000 inhabitants in the centre of it, bartering the superfluity of the country for the arts and manufactures of the town. Poor from generation to generation, and growing continually poorer as they increase in numbers, in the country, by the division and subdivision of property; in the town, by the division and subdivision of trades and professions. Such a people, instead of proceeding from the necessaries to the comforts of life, and then to the luxuries, as is the order of things in England, are rather retrograde than progressive. There is no advancement in French society; no improvement, nor hope of it."—(Tour in France, 4th edit. p. 34.)

It has been said, that property in land is of all others the most active instigator to severe and incessant labour. This, however, is a very doubtful proposition. It is true, that the exertions of the proprietor of a little farm are not paralyzed by any apprehensions of his being turned out of the possession before he has reaped the reward of his labours. But, on the other hand, his certainty of a resource, his dependence on the produce of a small piece of ground from which he cannot be ejected, and which will preserve him from absolute want, joined to the impossibility of his rising in the world, have a strong tendency to foster habits of relaxation and indolence. A farmer can never calculate with certainty on getting a renewal of his lease. Unless he has accumulated some capital, he is always exposed to the risk of being thrown destitute upon the world; but it is not so with the small proprietor. He relies for sup- port not on capital, but on land. He is exempted from all chance of being turned out of his possession; and cannot, therefore, have the same powerful motive to accumulate stock as the other. The small proprietors and farmers of France, Mr Birkbeck informs us, "having absolutely no means of improving their situation, submit to necessity, and pass their lives contentedly." The same is the case in Great Britain. "Throughout England there is no comparison between the case of a day-labourer and of a little farmer: we have no people that work so hard and fare so ill as the latter." (Young's Travels in France, Vol. I. p. 415.) And it is an indisputable fact, that those counties of Scotland, Kinross for example, where property is very much divided, are uniformly behind in their agriculture, and are farmed in a much inferior style to those where estates are more extensive.

It is foreign to the object of this article, to discuss the comparative moral and political effects produced by the division of landed property into large and small portions. We shall only observe, that a starving population, restricted to a dependence on the mere necessaries of life, is not very likely to be imbued with a just sense, either of the dignity or of the civil rights of man. An agricultural population, spread over a wide extent of country, has no point of reunion. Men only feel their own consequence—they can only act in a collective capacity, and with vigour and effect, after they have been condensed into masses and collected into cities. It is comparatively easy to animate the inhabitants of a large town with the same spirit,—there is a sympathy in their gladness and in their sufferings,—the redress of an injury done to a single individual, becomes in some measure the business of the whole. But, with agriculturists, the case is different,—they can be trampled down piecemeal,—they cannot act collectively, and must, therefore, submit themselves with less resistance to the yoke of the oppressor. Of all the arguments in favour of a minute division of landed property, that which supposes it would powerfully contribute to keep alive a feeling of manly independence, seems the most futile and preposterous.

As a plan for relieving the distresses of the poor, the cottage system is perhaps the very worst that can be devised. It should always be borne in mind, that, except in the case of maimed and impotent persons, there can be no poor in any country that ought to be relieved, unless the population is positively redundant. As long as the supply of labour does not exceed the demand, the whole industrious part of the community may be employed. In such a state of society none but the idle and the profligate can be without work, and the means of subsistence; and it will not, we presume, be contended that cottages ought to be built for their reception. In all cases, however, where the poverty and distress of the people proceed from a redundancy of population,—and that is the case whenever industrious persons are unable to procure wages sufficient to purchase the ordinary necessaries and comforts of life,—surely it would be most absurd to attempt to ameliorate their condition, by introducing a system, which, whatever might be its immediate effects, would lead to a still greater redundancy of population. Such would, most unquestionably, be the effect of the introduction of the cottage system. A person who gets a lease of a cottage and a small piece of ground, finds himself in a situation to marry. No longer dependent for mere subsistence on the good will of his employers, but feeling, if not an increase of wealth, at least an increase of security against want, the cottager is naturally stimulated to contract that engagement, into which men are otherwise sufficiently prone to enter. A cottage could not, indeed, be of any use to a single man. Either a wife or a female servant would be required to superintend its domestic economy; and as a cottager could not afford the payment of wages, it is easy to perceive which of the two he would prefer.

No person would think of attempting to relieve the pressure and distress occasioned by any sudden derangement or revulsion in the affairs of the commercial world, by proposing the adoption of a cottage system. The plan of granting cottages has only been recommended in cases where a permanent difficulty has been experienced in the procuring of employment. But in every such case the cure is worse than the disease. Where the population is redundant, and an industrious man can never be long without employment from any other cause, it should be our object not to accelerate but to retard the rate of its increase,—not to increase but to diminish the number of cottages.

Neither the circumstance of the general extension of the cottage system increasing the price of raw ten would produce, by its preventing the accumulation of capital and the improvement of machinery, nor its tendency to disseminate a spirit of idleness and of dissipation, are half so injurious to the labouring classes, as the effect it would have in giving a factitious stimulus to population. Although it were possible, and certainly it is not, immediately to provide for all the paupers in England, by granting them cottages and small pieces of land at a moderate rent, in the course of a few years that country would be in a still worse situation than at present. What would become of the families of these paupers? If the cottage system be once fairly introduced, where shall it stop? If it was proper to relieve the distresses of the sires in this way, why not also apply it to the case of the sons? The call for relief would, in the latter case, be more pressing than in the former, inasmuch as the population would have become more superabundant. It would then be impossible to retrace our steps. A fresh allotment of cottages would have to take place, and a fresh stimulus would again be applied to population. In this way the cottage system would at length overspread the whole country. "The principle of gravitation," says Mr Ricardo, when speaking of the poor laws, and it is still more applicable to the scheme for granting cottages, "is not more certain than the tendency of such a system to change wealth and power into misery and weakness; to call away the exertion of labour from every object except that of providing mere subsistence; to confound all intellectual distinction; to busy the mind continually in supplying the body's wants; un- Notwithstanding the extraordinary advances which Great Britain made in the interval between 1788 and 1812 in the accumulation of wealth and capital, and notwithstanding we were then able to engross almost the whole commerce of the world; yet, even then, and when the plan of giving cottages to the poor was but very partially adopted, the supply of labourers increased much faster than the demand for their exertions, and their real wages consequently declined. Now, when such is the indisputable fact, would it not be the extreme of folly, especially in the present situation of the country, to hold out any extraordinary inducements to the increase of the population? If the existing inducements to marry were sufficiently powerful to cause too great a supply of labourers to be brought into the market, even when there was an unusual demand for them, it would be most unwise to endeavour to strengthen those inducements at any time, and especially after the unusual demand had subsided.

The fact of the cottage system having a tendency to give a fictitious stimulus to population, and hence to cause a reduction of the real wages of labour, is of itself enough to satisfy every unprejudiced inquirer of the pernicious effects it must have on the condition of the lower classes. But its bad effects would not stop there. After landed property had been divided into minute portions, and after population had begun to press against the limits of subsistence, cottagers, in order to preserve their families from want, would have recourse to those crops which yield the greatest quantity of food from the smallest extent of ground. An extensive farmer cultivates those crops only, which exchange for the greatest quantity of money, or, what is the same thing, of other commodities necessary to his wants and comforts. With the small farmer, however, the case is different. He too would wish to raise that species of produce which would have the greatest exchangeable value; but the necessities of those depending on him for support must first be provided for. A cottager, with five, ten, or fifteen acres of land, could not possibly support himself and a family on wheaten bread and butcher meat. He would be forced to betake himself to some less expensive fare,—to relinquish first one enjoyment and then another,—and from one step to another, according as the increase of population increased the competition for cottages, potatoes would at length constitute his only food.

Although the real price of labour fluctuates with every fluctuation of the demand and supply, it is, like every other commodity, possessed of exchangeable value, ultimately regulated by the expense of production. Where labourers consider neat cottages, comfortable clothes, bread and beef, tea, &c., as necessary to their comfortable or decent subsistence, and where, unless they have a prospect of being able to command these enjoyments they are less inclined to marry,—the wages of labour are necessarily high. But, under the cottage system, wages would not merely experience a temporary depression from an excessive supply, but they would be permanently reduced. Workmen would then be raised at a comparatively small expense. And wages, being no longer regulated by the cost of wheat, beef, &c., but of potatoes, a species of food raised at the least possible expense, they would sink to the very lowest point.

From the fact of manufactured commodities always falling, and raw produce always rising (See Principles of Corn Laws) with the progress of society, such a disproportion in their relative value is at length created, that, in those countries where labourers are chiefly supported on corn, beef, &c., and where wages must of course be mainly regulated by their price, they are able, by sacrificing a small portion of their food, to provide liberally for all their other wants. But where the potato forms the ordinary food of the lower classes, the operation of this principle is scarcely perceptible. Potatoes, it is true, as well as corn, rise in real value as society advances, and as it becomes necessary to have recourse to poorer soils for their cultivation; but, under any circumstances, the quantity of labour required to produce as many potatoes as will feed a workman, bears but a small proportion to the labour necessary to produce corn or butcher meat for the same purpose. In a comparative point of view, therefore, very little additional command over manufactured commodities could be gained by a labourer diminishing his consumption of potatoes; and hence the present condition of the inhabitants of a country chiefly supported by that root, is not only much worse than it would be were they supported on some more expensive food, but their future prospects are rendered still more gloomy and discouraging.

It would not be an easy task to enumerate all the evils to which a country is exposed, when the real wages of labour are reduced extremely low, or when they are regulated by the price of the cheapest species of food; but they are unquestionably of the most appalling description. When wealth is accumulated in a country, the more opulent and middle classes, and even the lower orders, consume considerably more than the mere necessaries of life. In a season of scarcity, this consumption being diminished, the effect is the same as if an additional supply of provisions were imported from abroad. But when the mass of the population is already dependent on mere necessaries for their support, they cannot diminish their consumption. In a nation thus circumstanced, individual consumption must remain nearly the same, and a deficient crop is sure to entail disease, famine, and death, on a considerable portion of the community. This is no very alluring prospect held out by the cottage system, but it would be fully realized. In a country abounding in capital and manufactures, when a bad harvest happens, these are exported, and corn is brought home from every quarter of the world. But what superfluous produce could a nation of cottagers, or, rather we should say, of paupers, have to dispose off? Millions die in China and Hindostan whenever there is any serious deficit in the rice crop. The extremity of want is felt in Ireland when the potato is not ordinarily productive; and the sole reason why famines are not as frequent there as in China, is because the cottage system is not yet universally introduced, and because some capitalists are still to be found in that country.