The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-30 00:00:00

RENT--LABOUR-QUARTERLY REVIEW.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

LYMINGTON,
,OCT. 28.

SIR,—An article in the last Quarterly. Review
has drawn from me a few remarks which, I shall be
happy, if you think worth insertion in your Paper.
Without involving ourselves in the question of
rent, we may say without fear a contradiction that,
on an average of years, the price of provision is the
cost of its production. It follows, therefore, that
in proportion as inferior soils are brought into culti-
vation so much harder must the people work for
their food, while, at the same time, a class of idlers
or unprofitable consumers is gradually and inevitably
augmenting, who live on the additional produce of
the better soils over those of the least fertility, that
is on rent.
Such part of the rent as is not consumed by the
landlords in provision for themselves, their domestic
servants, or their cattle, is offered to the manufac-
turers, who, of course, must give so much more
labour in return for their sustenance as rents in-
crease. Thus it is the inevitable lot of man to work
harder and harder for his food ; and nothing can al-
leviate this but improvements in the Arts, whereby
food may be grown cheaper by the advancement of
the science of husbandry, or clothing be obtained
more reasonable through the application of machinery
to manufactures.

As long as none but tolerably good soils are under
cultivation, the lot of man is not very severe, be-
cause his labour then yields him a fair return oithe
comforts of life. When then a country has reaeled
such a state, that its growing population cannot be
supported without resorting to its worst soils, is it
not better, if possible, to employ its surplus popula-
tion in the manufacture of articles to which its na-
tural advantages are adapted, and to exchange those
commodities for provision procured in other coun-
tries at a rate as cheap as in the home market,
rather than force that surplus labour to be employed
in the cultivation of inferior soils, whereby the cost
of food must be augmented and the general comforts
of the people diminished?
Rents, we know, would be increased by resorting
to inferior soils, and the produce of the country in
provisions would be augmented for the time. But
wherein, let me ask, do rents add to the real riches
of the community; for in the same degree as they
add to the luxury of the rich they take from the com-
forts of the poor; or wherein, on this principle, does
the additional produce of food conduce to the happi-
ness power, or resources of the nation which con-
sist, the cultivation of any number of acres,
but in the general industry and comforts of the
people ? Must not, on the contrary, a pursuance of
this system produce a reaction on the land itself;
for, as it manifestly tends (as I have already ex-
plained) to lower the value of labour compared with
food, things must, in the end, arrive at such a state,
that the poor will be thrown on the land for sup-
port—the profits of agriculture be consequently di-
minished—rents be reduced—and land be thrown
out of cultivation at a time when its produce is most
required ?
Now, by admitting a fair importation of corn in
return for manufactures, the same quantity of pro-
vision could be obtained without involving any of
the evils above enumerated ; while this additional
good being obtained at a less cost, a surplus quan-
tity of capital and labour would be left to be employed
in extending manufactures, which, again, would be
partly absorbed by the increasing foreign trade, and
partly consumed by the mass of the people, who,
having less labour to give in return for their food,
would have more left to dispose of in procuring the
comforts of life.

Let us apply the foregoing to our own case. Every
one must observe the great difference between the
condition of the upper and lower classes in England,
in the extreme luxury of the one and the hardworked
state of the other. In fact, the labourer has not his
fair share of the comforts of life. This may be traced
to the cause I have assigned, that of forcing our
worst soils into cultivation. That it has been for
same time past suffering from a reaction such as I
have described, is equally apparent, though this,
no doubt, has been in some measure accelerated by
our enormous National Debt, the weight of which
is felt by all classes.
I am not for hurrying on a sudden change in our
system, but I feel convinced that if England could
but act on a principle of free trade in corn, as well as
manufactures, she might become to the rest of the
world in some degree what London is to England :
her population and resources would simultaneously
encrease, and her present burthen of taxation be-
come comparatively indifferent.
J. B.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, MONDAY, OCT. 29.

James Langrish and John Attree were indicted
for assaulting one of the
gate-keepers of the Re-
gent's-park.
The CHAmmatiusenteneedLangrish-to six months'
and Attree to three months' hard labour in the
House of Correction.

Green was indicted for assaulting a man of
the name of Bacon, who stated, that having met the
defendant at a public-house called the Punch Bowl,
some words arose between them, when the de-
fendant struck him with his fists over the temples
and under the right eye, the consequence of which
was, that he had become stone-blind of both eyes,
and his health had otherwise been seriously impaired.

The defendant, a sawyer, called witnesses, who
swore, that when the prosecutor came into the
public-house, he attempted to drink out of Green's
pot, when the latter told him be did not want his
company, and he might procure a pot for himself,
upon which Bacon abused him and desired him to
go home to his - of a daughter, who was ill at
home of disease.
The Jury found the defendant guilty of assaulting
the prosecutor, but under circumstances of gross
provocation.
The CHAIRMAN sentenced him to pay a fine of
101., with liberty to speak to the prosecutor.
The prosecutor very generously said he would Le
satisfied if the defendant paid the doctor's bill,
amounting to 21. 65., upon which
The] CHAIRMAN reduced the fine to 5/., with
liberty as before, which means a fine of half that sum
to the prosecutor.

The working stocking-makers of Hawick and
Dumkies, have obtained an advance of wages of from 13 to
18 per cent. according to the quality of the goods.—Ber-
wick Advertiser.