M.de Lavergne then notices the enormous progress which the use of steam has produced in England, especially inLancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire: cotton at Manchester, iron at Sheffield, wool at Leeds, commerce atLiverpool.He notices the wealth arising from the coal-fields."Under these circumstances," lie says, "the population of GreatBritain rose between 1801 and 1851 from 10 millions to 21.The population of Lancashire and of the West Riding wastripled.France in no instance shews anything like this: in the same interval it increased only by a quarter [a third].Itadvanced from 27 millions to 36.The most populous departments, those du Rhone and du Nord, have only two inhabitantsper hectare.
"If we pass into the departments of France which are most backward, those du Centre and du Midi, what do we find there Athin population reaching at most to the third of the English population, one inhabitant for two hectares, instead of threeinhabitants.And this population is almost exclusively agricultural.Few or no cities: few or no manufactures: trade only somuch as is strictly requisite for the narrow needs of the inhabitants: the centres of consumption being far asunder and themeans of communication dear and difficult, the expenses of transport would absorb the whole value of the produce.Here thecultivator can find little or nothing to sell.For what purpose then does he labour? To feed himself and his master with theproduce.The master shares the produce in kind, and consumes his part.If it is wheat or wine, the master and the métayereat wheat and drink wine.If it is rye, sarrasin, potatoes, master and métayer eat rye, sarrasin, and potatoes.Wool and hempare shared in like manner, and serve to make the coarse stuffs in which the two partners alike are dressed.If besides thisthere are a few lean sheep in the sheds, a few calves suckled with difficulty by cows exhausted with labour, and to which themilk is grudged, these they sell to pay the taxes.
"This system," he goes on to say, "has been much blamed: but it is really the only possible system there, where there are nomarkets.In such a country as this, agriculture cannot be a profession, a speculation, a trade.In order to speculate a manmust sell, and he cannot sell when he finds no one to buy.When I say no one, it is to push the supposition to an extremepoint, which it seldom reaches in fact.In France, even in the most secluded cantons, there are always some small number ofbuyers: sometimes a tenth, sometimes a fifth, sometimes a fourth, of that population which lives solely on agriculture.And inproportion as the number of these consumers increases, the condition of the cultivator improves; except it happens that hehimself supplies the income of these customers under the form of legal dues, or interest of loans, which happens at least insome instances.But the tenth, the fifth, even the fourth, is not enough to furnish a sufficient market; especially if this part ofthe population also is composed of producers, that is, of tradesmen and manufacturers.
"In this case the cultivator must grow food, in order to live.So long as the population is thin, this may be done; but whenpopulation increases, the want of subsistence is felt.
"But let us now pass to the part of France which is most populous and most industrious, that of the Western North.We findthere not exactly the counterpart of the English population; we find an inhabitant for each hectare, instead of 1?(as inEngland): but this is already the double of what we had elsewhere; and of this population, one half applies itself to trade,manufactures, and the liberal professions.What is especially called the country is not more populous than in the centre, andthe South; but in addition to the population we find cities numerous, rich, the seats of manufacturers; and among these, thelargest and most opulent of them all, Paris.There is in this region a large trade in agricultural produce.On all sides, thegrain, the wines, the cattle, the wools, the fowls, the eggs, the milk, stream from the country to the towns, which pay withtheir manufactures for what they purchase.When we reach this stage, farmers' rents become possible, and are found paid infact: this is the true cause of farmers' rents.The existence of such rents is an infallible indication of an economical situation,where the sale of produce is the rule, and where consequently cultivation can become a trade."And thus the transition from métayer rents to farmers' rents depends upon the existence of a regular market.And as theauthor says, that which was previously a series of problems, is perfectly explained.
M.de Lavergne traces the consequence of this view into various interesting details: but for these I have not time.I will turnto another transition from one form of Rent to another.For these transitions mark the great steps in the progress of eachnation, and are really far more important than the greatest events, in their history, as history is commonly narrated.
Transition from Serf Rents.
Serf rents are, as I have said, the rents paid: in labour to the owner of the soil by a peasant who is allowed to raise his ownsubsistence by labouring on the soil.They prevail now in Russia and in the eastern part of Europe.But previously theyexisted over the whole of Europe: they existed in England.How were they got rid of in England? When did this great eventtake place.I will give you Mr Jones s account of this change, (p.40):
