these into nourishing food, by conjoining them with others, might be very great; because it might often happen, as in the instance of the yew tree, before us, that these noxious plants might afford abundant food, at a season of the year when others could not be found; or that the soil was fitted to produce a greater quantity of nutriment by yielding these plants than any others. Were these experiments also pushed as far as was necefsary, might we not discover means of correcting those diseases in animals that originate from noxious plants ;-not by means of medicines, which too often tend to weaken the animal, and prevent its fattening; but by means of a proper mixture of other nourishing food, which fhould, altogether, tend to carry the animal forward in a continued state of progrefsive amelioration?

ON THE COMPARATIVE INFLUENCE OF AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURES UPON THE MORALS AND HAPPINESS OF A PEOPLE, AND THE IMPROVEMENT AND STABILITY OF STATES.

A SENSIBLE Correspondent, (Bee, vol. ix. p. 84,) has made some pertinent remarks on the probable danger of turning too much of our attention to manufactures, particularly in respect to the effect it may have on the morals of the people. As the happiness of a nation depends much more on the purity of the morals of its people, than on any other cause, this is a circumstance that ought to be carefully adverted to by all who have a desire to promote the prosperity

205 of a country. I fhall therefore appropriate a few pages for the purpose of discovering whether or not the apprehensions of the ingenious writer above quoted be well founded.

The most obvious consideration that occurs, when agriculture and manufactures are considered as affecting each other, is, that manufacturers, by becoming purchasers of the produce of the fields, offer encouragement to agriculture; and that, of course, the greater the number of manufacturers there are in any country, the more prosperous will the agriculture of that country be.

There is, however, a fallacy in this reasoning; and unlefs several circumstances are attended to, and guarded against, the conclusion here drawn may be very unjust. In many situations a great part of the subsistence of manufacturers may be drawn from foreign parts; and where that is the case, the agriculture of the country is not encouraged in proportion to the prosperity of its manufactures. If laws are injudiciously made, so as to cramp the operations of agriculture, the prosperity of manufactures may even, in some circumstances, retard the progrefs of agriculture; for by raising the wages of servants it diminishes the farmer's profit; who finding greater returns for money and attention in prosecuting manufactures, than in cultivating ground, the capitals of the most enterprising individuals will be withdrawn from rural operations, and vested in manufactures ; and with the general poverty of the tenants, the progrefs of improvements by them must be great ly retarded.

The argument above stated is fallacious in still another point of view. Manufactures can only augment the demand from the farmer, in consequence of augmenting the total numbers of the people. If, for example, one thousand persons are employed in agriculture, they will require just as much food as if five hundred of these were employed in manufactures and five hundred in agriculture. There will therefore in this case be the same encouragement to agriculture with or without manufactures. It may occasion, however, a considerable difference to individuals, and the consequences to the state may be, in the end, extremely difsimilar.

Whatever tends to augment the proportion of free produce on a farm, will, in the first instance, tend to augment the farmer's profit, and consequently the amount of rent he can afford to pay for his farm. If, with ten servants, he can produce a thousand bolls of grain, of gross produce, and if the expence of each servant be equal to the price of twenty bolls, on an average, two hundred out of the ten will be expended in that way. If two hundred also fhall be required for seed, he will have only six hundred left for paying rent and all other expences. But say, that, by a different mode of management, the same produce could be reared with five servants, then he would expend on them only one hundred bolls, and if the other expences were the same, he will have an additional profit, equal to the price of one hundred bolls so that whatever be the consequence to the nation at large, he finds it greatly his interest to diminish the number of the people on his farm.

4

By the same mode of reasoning we might fhow, that, after making this reduction in his servants, het would find himself better than formerly, if he should now be able to rear no more than nine hundred and twenty bolls, in place of rearing a thousand bolls of grofs produce, as at first for; in this case he would be benefitted to the amount of twenty bolls, though the actual produce of the country were diminished eighty bolls by this change. In this way the rents of many estates have been actually advanced in Scotland, while their real produce has been diminished.

The demand, therefore, for the produce of agricul ture, by manufacturers, may be only apparent; and the farmer, by diminishing his labourers, may have more free produce while the actual g fs produce of the country has been diminished; so that both these striking proofs of the prosperity of a country may be fallacious.

To the philosophical statesman, the number of the active citizens which can be supp rted in the state, affords the truest criterion of its power; but, like numbers in an army, he knows that unless means can be devised for giving them a constant supply of food, and enabling them to find the means of obtaining that food, at all times, they will be apt to be thrown into the most fatal disorders. It becomes a great object of his attention, therefore, to guard against these disorders; in the same manner as it requires the greatest exertions in a skilful general to provide stores and forage for his army at all times.

From these considerations, disregarding the accidental profits that may accrue to individuals from particular considerations, he will only consider the general effect that is to be derived to the whole community from such an arrangement. Hence he will naturally say, since, in consequence of particular arrangements, the same number of people may be sub sisted in the country by following agriculture chiefly as a business, or by engaging in manufactures, it is his duty to consider whether the happiness of the people, and the tranquillity of the state, would be most promoted by inducing them to pursue the one or the other of these modes of life; supposing it were in his power. This is the question I wish to investigate at present.

There is one very striking difference that must occur to every one who views the same number of persons as employed in agriculture, or in manufactures; vix. the great fluctuation in the earnings of the people, in the last class, in comparison of those in the other. Manufactures are subjected to great variations in the demand at market. Sometimes the orders for those of one sort, are so great, that the highest exertions are required for supplying that demand. During this period, every thing afsumes the most inviting appearance. The master manufacturers have it in their power to enhance the price or diminish the quality. Their profits are great. Every one is anxious to obtain as great a fhare as pofsible, in this gainful businefs; he tries to obtain as many hands as possible; journeymen, of course, become scarce and obtain higher wages; this induces