nently dearer, causes a permanent rise of wages, and a corresponding fall of profits.

MRS. B.

Your recapitulation is very correct, and I am glad to find you have understood me so well, for the subject of rent having been but recently investigated with accuracy, it is neither so thoroughly developed, nor so well understood, as most other branches of political economy.

END'S TRAVELS. FARMS HELD IN ADMINISTRAADVANTAGE OF AN OPULENT TENANTRY.

TION.

FROM the subject of our last conversation I have learnt that agriculture yields two distinct incomes: one to the proprietor, the other to the cultivator of the land.

MRS. B.

And it employs also two capitals to produce those incomes; the one to purchase, the other to cultivate the land. A man who lays out money in the purchase of land becomes a landed proprietor, and obtains a revenue in the form of rent. He who lays out capital in the cultivation of land, becomes a farmer, and obtains a revenue in the form of produce.

CAROLINE.

I thought that the land was the capital from which the farmer derived his profits.

MRS. B.

You mistake; the land is the capital of its proprietor, and as such yields him a revenue; whatever the farmer obtains from it, is derived from cultivation; that is to say, from the labour and expense he bestows on the soil. The cultivation of land is to the farmer what the operation of machinery is to the manufacturer. A farmer requires capital to pay his labourers, and to purchase his farming stock, such as cattle, waggons, ploughs, &c. It is the bare land and the farming buildings which he rents. The crops which are upon the ground when the agreement is made are paid for independently, and become the property of the

farmer. Unless therefore he has a capital to defray these expenses, he cannot take the lease of a farm.

CAROLINE.,

I always supposed that the produce of a farm was sufficient to defray its expenses; nor can I understand how profits are to be derived from a farm, if the cultivation and rent cost more than its produce will repay.

MRS. B.

It is not so. The capital of the farmer is employed as the means of cultivating his farm; and when at the end of the year, after paying his rent, his labourers, and keeping his stock in repair, he finds himself in possession not only of his original capital, but also of a surplus or profit, it is a proof that the farm produces more than the cost of its rent and cultivation. The case is similar in all employment of capital. The manufacturer who, lays it out in the purchase of raw materials, and in paying the labour which is afterwards expended on them; or the merchant whose capital is employed in the purchase of goods for sale, could not carry on their respective occupations without first laying out their capital: but it is returned to them, together with the profits that have accrued by its employment. Each of these occupations bring in

more than is laid out, but none of them could be carried on without a capital.

CAROLINE.

Oh yes; I recollect the labourer produces for his employer more than he receives from him as wages, and this surplus is the source of his master's profit; but if the farmer had not wherewithal to pay his labourers' wages, he could not set them to work.

It is then upon the capital which a farmer employs on his land, that he calculates his profits;

MRS. B.

Yes. Let us suppose that a farmer employs a capital of the value of 3000l. on his farm: he may, possibly, after deducting the rent and the expenses of cultivation, make ten per cent. or 300l. profit.

CAROLINE.

That is to say, that at the end of the year he would find himself 3001, richer than he was before?

MRS. B.

none of his gains But as his family

Provided that he had spent during the course of the year. are commonly maintained by the produce of the farm, he will at the end of the year be actually richer or poorer according to the proportion which