The National Register. — London, England, 1815-03-05 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL It-may be objected by some, how could tradesmen govern the variation of price in labour, where a contract has been agreed to, as a lease. Suppose a bricklayer estimates to build a brick wall for 200/, the quarter of wheat being 41. be agrees to receive the average value of .50 quarters of wheat when the business is finished. It is evident, if wheat advances to 61. per quarter, his workmen would receive 7s. 64. ; that is, Qs. 6d. per day above the price of labour when the agree- Ment was made nominally; but as 50 quarters of wheat would then be worth 300/, lie would receive• 1001. more currency to cover the advance of his labourers, in the event corn should advance. In all probability the price of corn would be sta tionary, as it would be more to the interest of the farmers to /educe the price than to conspire together to advance it, be cause, all their expences would increase in proportion, and profits and wages would only be one day's match in the rear. Against the rise of corn, it is evident that all the labourers and mechanics would be protected. The same would apply to yearly servants, by agreeing for the value of so many bushels or quarters of wheat per quarter. If a person collects rents, money, or deals in commission, and should find sixpence in the pound was an adequate sum, he would then agree for the value of half a loaf, which at one shilling would be sixpence, and in the same proportion for business done on commission. The application is simple, and all classes would be protected from the effects of monopolies, and the avaricious principles of covetous men ; as this is a fixed standard to govern the real value of land, and secure the same value in exchange for labour. These protections are founded on antient princi pies, aid are reduced to an unerring system, because nature originally founded both the law and the principle. The mote industry k applied on land to assist nature, the greater the produce would be to the cultivator, this increase of quantity is the reward he receives from nature, this return for inclu,try insures the consumers of corn a full supply. The greater the surplus the cultivators of land, 'can spare, after their own wants are supplied, the more will be distributed among the other classes of society who are not cultivators, stor possessed of laud. As industry and capital have been ex pended on land by the cultivators, it is a moral principle for .the land owners to claim that by way of rent, that was pro duced by the labour and capital of the cultivators, which has been the case during the last 20 years. By the drawing of 59 extra millions as rent, it is evident that rent is wealth, but this source of wealth should be limited. When a land owner lets his land to others to cultivate, the amount of rent should have a fired standard to govern the principle, so as not to distreis the labouring lass who compose nine twelfths of the It s entitled to support, and we may ners, being more useful to the of labouring men, the lands ITER. owners must be reduced to labour for their subsistence. Therefore it is a duty imposed by self interest and self pre servation on the land-owners not to persist in the oppression they have for the last twenty years too successfully laid on the labouring class of society. If the promoters of this national fermentation bad well considered the merits of the case as honest men, doing as they would others should do to them, no alteration would have been attempted. An Honourable Member, Mr. Whit bread, asset ts that in his opinion rents are not too high, but that high wages are of evil consequences, lead to idleness, ex travagance, and dissipation. Probably this may have bees true to the amount of cne in every hundred, but arc the ninety-nine to suffer for the imuiudence of this single indi vidual ? It is evident that high wages have not been paid upon general principles during the last twenty years; if high wages had been paid, it must be evident that the value of those money wages has Leen depreciated, because the same money would not be exchanged for the same quantity of food that nature requires; if it had, we should not have seen the great number of paupers increased, this answers the argu ments of the Hon. Gentlemen better than volumes. If mo ney wages have risen above what was paid in proportion to provisions in 17g2, it must he in a very confined compass, and that, probably, on an article of luxury. Therefore, if the manufacturer of a luxurious article, gave his labourer one pound per day, this could not apply• to the great in iss of our population that are employed in cultivating the land, and other useful branches actually necessary for domestic comfort. The observations on this head, prove the narrow ness of mind in legislators—for the value or all pu'ilic cha racters must be estimated by their private virtues—for where a man exercises no private virtues, or Chris.ian benevolence to his neighbours, labourers, or tenants, his public profes sions, whilst he acts upon an opposite principle, should be re ceived with great caution. Sir, the proportion of high wages is so destructive to society, though in a confiued sphere, what must the prig - ciples of high rents lead to ? High rents have . caused luxury, immorality and vicious habits, in the generality of the higher class of society, and these luxuries and dissipa tions have been hurtful to 19 parts out of 20 ; therefore, the injurious effect that those high rents have produced is manifest to all. Because, if these gentlemen land-owners had received no more rent than the farmers paid them in 1;92, bread would have remained at the same price. It is evident, by the statement iu my last letter, that the exchange of mon!) , wages was not equal to the bread wages which the labourer received in 1792. This loss CM upon 19 parts of the population, and benefitted a few; the injury that society at large receives from high wages bears no proportion, not as I to 1,000,—0n the contrary, the single laud-owner that ex torts high rents causes an injury to a million, because it af fects the first principle whence nature receives its supply. It is evident to all honest men, that the proposed alteration is founded on injustice and oppression, unless the ex change of labour is regulated by the price of bread. To folk) v the various arguments that have been adduced by the support ers of the Resolutions, would be tedious at present, as 1 have already intruded on your goodness. One of the supporters dwells a great deal on the industry of our present peat far mers, who prefer a bottle of wine to a mug of ale—On their iudustry, &v. in my next—l am your's. Mr. Editor. &c. . AN ENGLISHMAN OF THE OLD SCHOOL. February V, 1815. 116