the workman in the field; in a word, to enable those who remain in their native country to find something else there than fern and buckwheat-bread, unhealthy pondwater, and, true penance of Tantalus, immense lands to cultivate, but no labour. And then, when this work of reparation shall have been accomplished, we might, without reverse of the medal, be justly proud of our country. Instead of progressing towards the English organization in what relates to the repartition of the populations, we shall have preserved our old and strong French organization-the predominance of the rural populations over the urban, the scattered populations over the agglomerated. Undoubtedly the progress of mechanical agriculture, like that of mechanical manufacture, tends to the substitution, so far as it can, of the work of machinery for that of men. But does it follow that this desirable substitution has been, up to the present time, one of the causes to which we are allowed to attribute the depopulation of the country districts? Have we a right to say that the thrashing-machine, the drill, the horse-hoe, the steam locomotive, the haymaking machine, &c., &c., have in any degree whatever diminished on our farms the demand for hand labour ? To maintain such affirmations would be to forget, in my opinion, that the more agriculture is improved, the greater its need of the arm-and let us mark well this fact-the arm of intel. ligence. This is what appears to have escaped the notice of many writers, who, on this question of population, have spoken of the wants of agriculture in men, and who understand manufacturing much better than rural economy. More familiarity with this last science would have taught them that amongst the elements that determine the choice of systems of cultivation, it is necessary, before all, to accord a very great importance to the amount of the labouring population. Show us the least populous country, and forest and pastoral agriculture reign there; ascend a ladder, and you find arable culture mingled with fallows and pasturage; see, in short, a country well peopled, and you are in presence of intensive culture, culture without fallows, culture with stabulation of cattle, and predominance of roots, artificial forage, manufacturing and garden plants, &c. It is quite true that machines are multiplied in proportion as the earth is better cultivated; but as, on the other hand, the demands of consumption increase, it happens that, up to the present at least, the increasing fertility of the soil causes the extension of manufacturing and gardening cultivation, which implies also a greater need of hand-labour. And not only are more hands necessary, but, what is more important for the working population, the rural labour formerly concentrated upon the harvest season has become better distributed over the whole year. Thus workmen are required for spring tillage, for the autumn harvests, and for winter works in the agricultural districts. Hence, less stoppage, but a more equally-balanced labour, better sustained, and better remunerated. Such is the truth of the case. Machinery has in no respect occasioned the emigration of the rural population; since agriculture, otherwise in presence of larger outlets, has never had such extensive need of handlabour as since the period of the improvement of machines. It is therefore not true that the attraction of the cities over the rural populations can be a good thing; nor is it true that this attraction is a sign of high civilization. On the contrary, this unclassing of the populations is a fact not to applaud, but to combat with, in its exaggerations. Let us not forget, as a last analysis, that it not with French as with English agriculture. This latter, whether it be from its markets or from the nature of the soil and climate, employs itself little except upon forages, corn, and cattle. The former, much more complex, unites to the production of alimentary commodities, those of vines, mulberries, olives, fruit trees, manufacturing and horticultural plants, in the open fields. The small culture therefore predominates over our territory; and the small culture signifies the rural population in the greatest number. All these ideas have been developed by M. de Lavergne, in several chapters which he has devoted to the special study of cattle, machinery, agricultural and forest products. Written under the impression of the visits made by the author to the Exposition of 1855, these chapters are not simply a technical description of the objects that the several nations had sent to the great gathering at Paris. Much higher is their bearing, for they are in truth a study of the whole of European agriculture. Thus, when the Exposition terminated, the author, always pre-occupied with the condition of the rural classes, takes, at setting out, many of those ideas which, with more or less opportunity, have been thrown into public discussion. In many of these ideas appears commercial freedom; that is to say, the suppression, or rather the progressive reduction of customs' duties exacted at the frontiers of each nation. I will not enter into the discussion of this so-much controverted question; and besides, there is not a single reader of this journal who does not know that M. de Lavergne does not in any respect believe that our agriculture is efficiently protected by the sliding-scale and other fiscal arrangements. I will only say that, in opposition to many ancient organizers of free exchange in France, who explained to us, as was done in England for the agriculture of that country, that French agriculture was enriched at the expence of the consumers, M. de Lavergue has clearly shown that enormous difference which, in this respect, exists between the agricultures of the two countries. In fact, the free-exchangists of Outre-Manche might justly support themselves upon the excessive dearness of agricultural products, and by that argument organize a league against the import duties on cereals. But in France to talk of the excessive dearness of commodities, and of the illegitimate profits of agriculture, was in truth to place the spirit of system above the reality of facts; to discredit political economy; and at all hazards, to ruin the doctrine of free-trade in public opinion. Real science, or that which is based on the study of things, ought therefore to be pleased that M. de Lavergne has re-opened this question, and placed it upon its true foundation. Such men advance the sciences slowly it is not necessary to repudiate them because they sometimes deceive themselves; but when a principle is badly advanced, it must be replaced. : his own opinion on a measure that would tend to noIt is impossible that M. de Lavergne should not know thing less than the re-establishment of an order of things incompatible with our present habits. Listen to certain reformers, and they charge the subdivision of the land with the backward state of our agriculture; they consequently demand that we introduce into our legislalation the illimitable liberty of willing property at death, and the right of entail. What does M. de Lavergne think on this subject? A partisan of free competition, he admits only one means of disallowing the sale to the small proprietor, that is, to do better than he, as may be done in certain situations. In the background, therefore, are those superannuated combinations, which, powerless to reascend the course of time, would be useful only in raising new storms. "The law of equal division,' says our author, "is the flesh and blood of France. We cannot touch it without danger, at least in its essential dispositions." This is saying plainly that M. de Lavergne does not push the fanaticism of this law of equal division to a disregard of the inconveniences of the 826th article of the Code, which allows to each of the heritors to demand his part in kind, of the furniture and fixtures of the succession. This régime of absolute equality has conducted us straight to that of instalments, of enclosures of pieces of land; that is, a régime that multiplies inordinately the ditches, fences, rights of passage, &c.; which hinders the reform of bad distribution of crops, and the execution of great works connected with drainage, irrigation, &c. Here, then, there is something to do; and M. de Lavergne thinks that, for example, one of the heirs should be authorized to take possession of fixtures exceeding in value his share, on payment to the others of three per cent. interest, and two per cent. redemption, with the power of repaying the whole on the principle of a credit-foncier. With regard to the soil, the principal element of agricultural labour, M. de Lavergne demands the reduction, and even the suppression of the rights which involve the real property mutations. This is well spoken, and it was moreover the advice of M. Gasparin; these rights are, in fact, one of the first causes of the enormous debt of the proprietary. They bar the idea of all improvements; and one of the best means of encouraging agriculture will unquestionably be to facilitate the mutations. Again, with regard to the soil, M. de Lavergne has met with a publicist who places the existence of communal property in the list of the most efficacious means for ameliorating the condition of the rural classes. Upon this, a protest is urged by M. de Lavergne, who knows very well that the land that is every body's is nobody's, and who, in that frame of mind, reproaches the communalities when they go beyond a certain proportion with the population, for the maintenance of poverty, idleness, ignorance, and thought lessness. After the soil come capital and labour. Here agriculture is, it may be said, in presence of two deserters, who have given notice of passing over to the enemy. The enemy! that is undoubtedly the true expression, when it is intended to point out those manufactures which do nothing for the soil, whilst they consume nevertheless its produce. Once more we must not be misunderstood. Manufacture and agriculture cannot be enemies under a reign of free competition; but their productiveness may be singularly changed in a social state in which the urban populations have remained longer protected than the agricultural population. Indeed, such is the primitive idea, resulting from the economic studies of M. de Lavergne. Centralization has so far ruled our situation in France, that almost all causes have combined to develope the riches of the cities rather than those of the country. Thus professional instruction occupies itself with recruitment of the army, with medicine, with the bar, with the arts and manufactures, rather than with that of agriculture. So again, the majority of the great families reside in the cities, where they find life more agreeable. And we are astonished that capital and la bour desert the fields, when they have so high an example set them. We are astonished that the peasants, surrounded with lands which should be the best investments for rural savings, have become the holders of railway shares and debentures of French and foreign stocks! O progress of the age! Formerly, when the country notaries made out inventories of inheritance, what did they find in the house of the easy peasant? Good closets furnished with good linen, and granaries well furnished with corn. What do they find now? Papers and public deeds negociable at the Exchange. It is the fulfilment of the proverb, "Other times, other manners.' It remains to be seen which manners are the best. But what can be done to alter all this? On this ques tion M. de Lavergne shows himself faithful to all his economic antecedents; that is to say, that his advice is not of those who would upset all social order. He has interrogated the science of political economy. He knows on what conditions capitals are created and manufactures prosper. He has confidence also in the good sense of our rural populations, who, in times of great crises, have always known how to get us out of them. He hopes, too, that more than one prodigal son will return sooner or later to the village; for, after all, it is there that France will always reckon upon the most labourers, and, at need, the most soldiers. On the other hand, it behoves us to prepare for this future. Agriculture will become what agriculturists themselves become: like as in all the social circles, high as well as low, these should be able to treat on a footing of equality with the representatives of other professions; and then not one measure of general interest will be taken without the agricultural interest receiving full satisfaction. All depends on that; it is necessary that agricultural France should be able to constantly enlighten the Government, for there are no more certain means of rendering it stable and powerful, to the profit of the country. Large culture and a large property, above all, have much to do, to march on an equality with the small proprietor and small culture. We may say that in this respect we are not in equilibrium as a nation. If the number of cultivators were sufficient for success, or rather, to place the agricultural element into position amongst the other elements of national power, it is evident that French agriculture, the employment of twenty-five out of the thirty-five millions of inhabitants, would be in a position to make the rural spirit predominate in the public mind; and, with the rural spirit, all the principles of order and progress which it comports. But we are not deceived there. If the rural spirit exists in our country, let us admit, at least, that it is much more alive in the subdivided districts than in those of aggregated culture. It is not, therefore, surprising that it should experience ideas, manners, and aspirations of the intellectual level of the dominant population, of which it is the representative. This is why we find in it, in so high a degree, that love of family and property, and all those domestic virtues, which, in a word, are, without dispute, one of the most solid bases of our social order. But by way of retaliation, it is not amongst these laborious populations, almost constantly bowed down to the soil, that we must seek for those connected ideas, that knowledge of general interests, and that superior education which our modern society requires. Consequently it is no longer there that we must seek for that useful counterpois, which, amongst the English, places the defence of agricultural interests under the protection of men who can, know how to, and will, cultivate them. It is, therefore, essential that we should not confound the rural spirit of large culture with that of small culture. The latter guarantees order in this respect, that small workmen have neither time nor even desire to employ themselves with anything but their harvests, cattle, sales, and purchases. The former, quite as strenuous for order, more particularly guarantee progress in this sense-that, sharing in the movements of general interest, it can give the impulse to public opinion, and does not conform itself to receiving the word of command. In a word, if there were in a state only small cultivators, the big-wigs of finance, manufacture, and commerce would easily gain the ascendancy; which would be a misfortune, for it would be the absolute reign of certain interests. It will not be thus: science and capital come to the fields; and, thanks to these levers of progress, there is amongst our rural society a class of men who, without the rights of seniority, majorats, or estates in tail, will know how to prevent the excessive sub-division of the soil. To this class of men we may address the language of M. de Lavergne; for, precisely because it loves the truth and disdains false complacency, because it desires employment for the workmen and preaches by example, there are none, who better than they, have the right of not being suspected of a bad spirit, when they raise their voice in favour of useful reforms, and point out certain dangers to the citizens. M. de Lavergne has found an echo in this part of the population. It is, I think, an excellent proof that he has in his writings known how to unite moderation of language with firmness of opinion. Let us not, however, consider him exclusively as the advocate of large culture: that would be to forget all that he has justly said in favour of small culture, for which he professes, with truth, a very particular esteem. So alsoin what regards manufacture, it is unnecessary to suppose THE LATEST PATENTS FOR PLOUGHING BY STEAM. The next patent machine for tilling and preparing and, adapted to "steam traction," which we have to notice, is that of William Smith, of Little Woolstone, Bucks. (Patent dated September 7th, 1853. No. of patent, 2,121. Price of specification, 64d.) The invention claimed in the patent is the manner of combining implements, such as the patentee has before used as subsoil ploughs, into one. The implement represented in the drawing is in general appearance like the cultivator or grubber. The tines, or "implements" as they are designated in the specification, are three in number. Of these, the central is the only one provided with handles; the frames or bodies of the other two are in all respects similar to this central implement. Two cross-beams (a a) are provided for combining the three into one. The fore parts of the beams or bodies of the implements are connected with a bar (b) which | runs parallel to, and some distance before, the crossbeams (a a). At each end of the bar (b) a vertical screw, with an eye at its upper end, is placed; through the eyes of these rods the draft chains fixed to the stems of the cutting implements are passed, and extended forward and attached to the whippletree connected with the bar (b). The whippletree is inclined, as required, to either side, by chains attached to each end these are taken up and hooked at points in the handle of the central implement, so as to be within reach of the attendant. Wheels are provided, one to each of the two outer implements; and in some cases, on stiff land, the patentee states that each implement has its own wheel. The height of the wheel and of the implements are adjusted in the frame in manner similar to the coulter and wheels of the plough. The tine, or cutting part of the implement, resembles in form the tine of the ordinary grubber or cultivator. The patent next in chronological order which we propose to notice under the present division of our subject, is that granted to John Allen Williams, of Baydon, Wilts. (Patent dated 17th of June, 1854. No. of patent, 1,325. Price of specification, 1s. 6d.) This invention relates to an arrangement of plough or cultivating apparatus for working land, "Whereby," says the specification, 66 a much superior cultivating effect is obtainable than is possible with the common or other existing forms of ploughs or cultivators." The cultivating implements represented in the drawings attached to the specification resemble closely in arrangement and detail the ordinary plough, with its share, mouldboard, and coulter. The peculiar feature of the arrangement is the method by which various adjustments can be given to these ploughs: they can, for instance, be lifted vertically out of or adjusted to any distance from the soil in which they work, the ploughshares being attached to a series of horizontal bars (a) running from end to end of the framing of the machine; these bars being provided with eyes sliding up and down on vertical guide-bars (b) fitted to the back of the framing. Three of these plough bars or beams (a) are stated by the patentee to be a convenient number. To the front of the framing, vertical guides (c), corresponding to (b), are fitted: these are provided with block pieces (d) which slide up and down. To projecting rings or ears made on these block pieces (d) the extremities of the horizontal plough bars (a) are jointed, the ends of the plough bars being furnished with a double eye or fork. By this arrangement, if obstacles present themselves to the ploughs while in operation, the ploughs give way to the obstacles; the plough bars (a) rising behind, and turning on the jointed block pieces (d) sliding on the front guide bars (c), the plough bars, with their attached ploughs, are lifted simultaneously out of contact with, or adjusted to any distance from, the soil by the following means. At each end of the framing carrying the guide bars (b c) a set of loose pulleys (e) are hung; chains connected with the plough bars (a) at each end pass over these pulleys; the chains (ƒ) attached to the ends of the plough bars at the back of the machine being at once connected to lever handles (g) placed within the reach of the attendant. The chains attached to the front end of the plough bars (a) pass over their corresponding pulleys, and are connected with rods or links which extend along the framing, and are connected at their opposite ends to the chains (ƒ) connected with the lever handles (g). By depressing these handles (g) both ends of the plough bars are raised simultaneously. The lever handles (g) work in segmental slides provided with holes, through which pins pass, and are made to regulate the extent of "lift" of the plough bars (a). Each plough bar is also capable of being lifted up independently of the others, by means of a small handle fixed to the back end of the bar. The vertical guide bars (c) are capable of being slightly inclined, so as to give a corresponding lateral inclination to the coulters and turn-furrows of the ploughs, and to enable them "to turn the furrows more efficiently when ploughing a hill-side or sidelong ground." The lateral traverse of the frame which gives the inclination to the guide bars (c) above referred to, is effected through the medium of a handle situated at the back of the machine, within the reach of the attendant. This handle is fixed at the end of a rod reaching from one end of the machine to the other, and provided at the further extremity with a pinion working into a rack fitted on the hind bar of the sloping wrought-iron frame carrying the guide bars (c) working in slots attached to the main framing of the machine. The whole apparatus is supported in a long rectangular framing, of length corresponding to the number of ploughs employed. This framing is supported by two large wheels, running loose upon separate axles, placed at different levels to suit the depth of furrow to be made in the inequality of the surface over which the machine travels. A support for the framing is obtained at the back end by a smaller wheel set upon a swivel centre capable of lateral adjustment. ploughing, the off-side front wheel runs in, and is steadied by the furrow cut by the previous traverse of the plough, whilst the corresponding wheel runs on the unploughed ground. This arrangement involves the necessity of having the near side-wheel higher by the depth of the furrow than the off side, this being attained by a nut and screw in a rack and pinion adjustment. The ploughshares or cutters are set one behind the other, as regards the direction of the plough's traverse; so that the off or right-hand plough begins to cut first, the second one next, and the near one last: the hind wheel, following immediately in the newly cut furrow on the near side of the plough, receives a guide from the last formed furrow. In one machine, for turning up or otherwise tilling the land." Two, three, or more ploughs are mounted on a frame, in a position diagonal to their direction of motion, so that one acts in advance of the other, and breaks up and turns over a breadth of land equal to the number of ploughs employed. In the machine shown in the drawing four ploughs are employed. The ploughs are provided with parallel-faced stems, which slide in sockets, made in the main framing. This framing is supported in front by two swivel wheels, which are free to turn round on the vertical axis, supported by the front of the framing to the axle of the wheels. Near one end a rod is jointed; this is carried along the front of the framing, and jointed to the short arm of a hand lever, placed within reach of the attendant. By turning this handle the rod acts upon, and causes the axle of the wheels to move out of the line, so that the machine may be guided as desired. The centre of these wheels is also adjustable, so as to bring it nearer to or further from the ground, by a lever jointed to the upper end of the vertical one attached to the axle of the wheels. The framing is supported at the back by two large wheels, which are capable of adjustment, by means similar to that employed in the well-known" cultivator" of the patentee. The ploughframes are fitted to sockets in a second framing; this is placed above the main framing, and moves in vertical guides attached to the main framing, and also by rods sliding in vertical guides made in a bar or tie, which is placed across the lower framing. To the upper frame the coulters are suspended in the same way as the plough-frames; the upright stems of the coulters, as also of th plough, slide in sockets made in the lower framing. The upper frame, with its plough-frames and coulters, is elevated and depressed at will by an ingenious system of levers. A cross shaft (a), fitted with a lever handle, by which it can be turned on its bear Although not exactly in chronolgical order, we may here notice a second patent granted to Mr. Williams (date of patent Dec. 7, 1855; No. of patent 2,766; price of specification 9d.), for a ploughing or cultivating machine, the general arrangements of which closely resemble that which we have above described; the plough or cultivator bars being supported and adjustedings, is supported in bearings fitted to the main or by the same mechanism; the framing is, however, supported on a pair of small swivel wheels in front, and by a pair of larger wheels at the back of the machine. An important claim in the patent is for "a peculiar share." This consists of an ordinary plough share, with a left-hand pin formed in it. small turnfurrow of a peculiar construction is fitted to the plough body, and consists of a steel plate, fitted or formed with a knife or cutting edge, at right angles or thereabouts to its surface, working under the furrow, and severing the same, so that one portion of the furrow slice will be cut and laid over the other part, thus leaving an uneven surface for the harrow teeth, in the subsequent operation of harrowing, to lay hold of." The central beam is the longest, and has its cutting implement nearest to the front of the framing, which is angle or pointed, so as to suit the different lengths of the beam. By the arrangement adopted, the two implements on each side of the central beam come into operation successively. The pins of the shares are made broad enough to intersect each other's course; in this way the entire surface is operated on. A claim is also made in the patent for a combination of implements in one frame, to act as a rafter frame and a horsehoe. The ploughs in the ordinary machine can also be taken out, and "drag" tines substituted. lower frame; and carries at each extremity bell cranks or levers, with two arms, one of which is horizontal. These horizontal arms are connected by jointed rods to the middle of the upper framing carrying the ploughframes, while the other arms of the bell cranks are "Ajointed to the lower arms of a second series of bell cranks. These second bell cranks are fitted to studs in the lower frame, the other arms of these bell cranks being connected to the upper frame by levers. The upper frame is thus entirely supported by jointed rods, connected with a series of bell cranks. By moving the lever on the cross shaft (a), the whole system of cranks and levers is operated upon, and the upper frame lowered or raised as required. In a modification of this apparatus, also described in the specification, the upper moveable frame is dispensed with, and the plough-frames and coulters are raised by a rack-and-pinion motion. THE ARTIFICIAL MANURE QUESTION. - At a meeting of the Oxford Farmers' Club, on Wednesday, Jan. 14, the following resolution, proposed by Mr. Mein, and seconded by Mr. Coggius, was carried unanimously: "That this Club considers the use of artificial manure is still too much limited; that Peruvian guano, as a standard, is the best top-dressing for corn crops; farm-yard manure, guano, nitrate of soda, and bone-dust for grass land; that mixed manures are the best for root crops; and that without a liberal use of artificial manure the present extent of land in this country could not be kept in cultivation, as there is nothing that has tended more to assist high farming than the introduction of artificial manure; and, finally, that this Club does not consider that the decay of the root crop is attributable to the lavish application of manures." At the same meeting, Mr. Thomson, of Culham, was re-elected Chairman of the Club for the ensuing year. THE CAUSES OF THE DECLINE IN THE PRICE OF CORN. The continued decline in prices of grain, but especially wheat, has begun to alarm the agriculturists, some of whom consider it the prelude to a permanent range of prices below what it can be produced at. There are, however, many causes operating at the present time to occasion this decline, which are not likely to continue; nor, some of them at least, to occur again; and to these we are about to direct the attention of our readers, with the view of relieving their minds from apprehensions which have little foundation in facts. First. The wheat crop of 1857 was, beyond a doubt, above an average one, probably to the extent of onefifth, taking the usual produce at 16,000,000 quarters. This would make the produce of the last harvest 19,500,000 quarters, or about one-and-a-half million quarters below the average consumption. A very large portion of the crop was thrashed out in the first four months of the season, so that although the American supplies of both wheat and flour were withheld during that period, there was an ample supply of nativegrown wheat, and importations enough from the Baltic and other near ports of foreign wheat to supply any deficiency that would otherwise have arisen from the non arrival of the produce of the United States. toes. trade as to make up to us the loss of the American supply; and, if we may judge of the future by the past, we should say that even this season they cannot continue to export, without leaving themselves bare of wheat. The following statement will bear us out in this opinion. By a reference to the French official returns of ex- Imports.... 18,485,387 or 739,415 per annum. The whole of these statistics are a bagatelle compared with those of the United Kingdom; but they are important to us, as proving that, at present at least, France cannot grow wheat permanently for exportation. Even if we take the last eleven years, which are considered by the French writers on the subject to have been seasons of great agricultural prosperity, we find the excess of imports to average still more than for the above twenty-five years, being 337,764 qrs. per annum. contraction of the area of cultivation, or the consumpEither, therefore, the quantity grown is smaller, by a tion of wheaten bread has increased in France. believe that the former has been the case, for the following reasons. We Another minor cause is the state of the potato crop, which on account of the prevalence of the disease, and doubt of their keeping good in store, have been brought to market freely, and as largely consumed by the small growers instead of bread. This has materially affected First, the continual subdivision of the land under the the consumption of the latter article since harvest; but as the potatoes are rapidly being used up, the work-present law of inheritance, has a manifest tendency to withdraw cultivation from cereals, and multiply ing classes will soon have recourse to bread again as the only farinacious food, and now cheaper than pota- economists, considered the glory of the system, as affordthe kinds of produce. This is, by some of the French Thirdly, the state of the money market, which has ing subsistence to a much larger population. But, on the other hand, the most far-seeing men in that affected every other market in the kingdom, especially country deprecate the system as forming a direct that of corn, not only as having diminished consump- barrier to all agricultural as well as social improvetion by throwing a vast number of hands out of ment, whilst it keeps the whole agricultural population work, and thus reducing their means for procuring food, in a normal state of poverty incompatible with the but also by inducing the millers and dealers to contract well-being of the state. A proof of this may be found their purchases to their immediate requirements, and in the statistics of the population, which in five years, thus checking whatever disposition might otherwise from 1851 to 1856, has increased only to the extent have existed to retain stocks of wheat and flour. of 256,194, or rather less than three quarters per cent. But the most remarkable feature in the census is, that whilst the whole of France has increased only 256,194, the population of Paris has increased 305,354; which it is evident that in the agricultural districts the population is rapidly decreasing, Paris being only the type, in regard to population, of the other large cities of France; and the same process is going on in all the rural districts. It appears also, by the accounts of well-informed men, that it is not the very poorest of the rural population that are thus fleeing from their native villages, but the most intelligent and well-todo of the peasantry and mechanics of all kinds. Nor is it from the increase of agricultural machinery that these men are driven to emigrate, for improvements of all kinds find enormous difficulties in penetrating into the interior of France. Nor are the French peasantry as a body able, in a pecuniary point of view, to adopt such improvements, or any measures for the amelioration of the soil or increase of their produce. In this Fourthly, the rescinding of the French decrees against the exportation of grain. We have left this to the last, not because of its unimportance, but because it demands a fuller explanation than any other question connected with the subject. That the late decree has had a material and very natural effect upon the price of wheat and flour is evident, from the course prices have taken from the very day was promulged on the corn market; and that effect is easily accounted for. If any produce market is amply supplied, a small excess in permanent operation will tend to lower prices, as a small permanent deficiency will have the contrary effect. Now, the quantity of French wheat and flour imported, and in process of being imported, into the United Kingdom, is trifling compared with the consumption, but it is in excess of the demand, and consequently takes the place of so much native wheat, also being fresh and of good quality. Whether the French will be able to continue exporting even to the present small extent is a question that remains to be solved. Certain it is, however, that their own production and consumption will not leave room for such an export from * See the article on Agriculture and Population in another column. |