probably would, be of greater proportionate value. The author will add, that there is a note intended to explain this statement of Mr. R.'s; but it only seems to make "confusion worse confounded." Difficulty of, or great expense in production, so far from being a benefit, is a loss to, or diminution of, the rental of the landlord. The whole charges for, or burthen of the soil, indirectly, but ultimately, are paid by him. This is the reason why pasture land in general, which is farmed at little cost, bears a higher value, and that which is free from tithe, though to be paid by the tenant, or easily assessed to the poor or other rates, is worth more in rental than land differently circumstanced. The amount of labor required on every soil ought also to influence its annual rental. The fairest way of letting or taking an estate is on the foregoing calculation, which even then admits of a sufficient uncertainty as to seasons, times, management, &c. to make it a speculative proceeding in either party, especially where a lease is granted. When a farm is to be let, the landlord or his agent should well consider its capabilities of production under the best management, which he has a right to calculate on, and then weighing the amount of produce to be expected both in live and dead stock, should affix, to the best of his experience and judgment, its future probable values in the market. This would bring a large gross sum in the year, which, were there no other outgoings but the simple ones of interest for the capital advanced by the tenant, and common remuneration for his labor, would leave to the owner of the soil a very considerable rental. From this supposed revenue he has, however, to deduct whatever the tenant pays for land-tax, poor-rates, church and highway rates, laborers' wages, mechanics' bills, &c., besides making an allowance for casualties, extraordinary cultivation, and, in most instances, repairs. Thus the rent actually paid to, or the revenue of the landlord, is considerably affected by a number of, and, indeed, the whole of, the charges which burthen the land, reducing it to only a third, or, perhaps, a fourth part of the gross amount and value of the produce at market. How, then, since he is the real payer of all these expenses by letting his land at a rental proportionate to them (and any knowlege of business convinces us that such is the case); since rent and expenses, as regards the marketable price of corn, and with respect to the revenue or profit of either the landlord or tenant, are nearly synonymous terms, or have only the same influence, how could Mr. R. be justified in saying that the one should be the effect and the other the cause of agricultural values? Experience denotes a different conclusion. In the very same year, although cultivation may not have been attended with any particular cost, we find grain varying in price 20 or 30 per cent., which can be accounted for only on the well or ill-founded impression of the magnitude in supply or demand. It matters not whether it be a real or supposed abundance or scarcity (though intelligence of such a nature is, in general, pretty correct), for a report of either will materially influence the market price, and exalt or depress it as the idea gains ground. It has been known, though, that even in the real plentifulness of any article of landed produce, an opinion of its scarcity has prevailed, and consequently raised its exchangeable value. Thus we see, that so far from any reference being made to the actual cost of production, as a regulator of prices, according to Mr. R.'s, datum, such prices are often guided even by a visionary impression, are frequently ideal, or, in general cases, submit to the ruling power of supply and demand. 31, Bedford St. OR, AN ATTEMPT TO CORRECT CERTAIN SUPERSTITIOUS AND VULGAR ERRORS RESPECTING THE SABBATH. BY GODFREY HIGGINS, Esq. OF SKELLOW GRANGE, NEAR DONCASTER. LONDON:-1826. PREFACE. In the following Treatise some persons perhaps may think, that too much trouble is taken to refute trifling objections but the Author's object has been if possible to prevent reply. And he has not attempted to refute any objection, which has not at one time or other, been advanced by persons with whom he has argued on the subject. He flatters himself that not one word will be found in the whole, which can give just offence to the orthodox or reasoning Christian, or even to the sincere follower of Wesley; though no doubt offence enough will be given to members of societies which suppress vice in rags, and cherish it in purple and fine raiment,―itinerant attendants at missionary meetings-such as practise standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets sounding their trumpet, and making long prayers. (Matt. vi. 2—5. xxiii. 14, 15.) Persons well described in the following epigram, written by a much esteemed friend of the Author: How well the character agrees 20, Keppel Street, Russell Square, 25th Jan. 1826. |