much higher in the United States than in England, instead of being, as it naturally should be, lower; and is probably the only reason why it appears higher in the western than in the middle and eastern states of this Union. In comparing the reward of labor at different periods in the same country, a particular product of the country, like wheat, is a better test than money; though still an uncertain one. But in comparing the reward of labor at the same period in different countries, any one article is obviously of little or no value. The only sure test is the general condition of the laborer, that is, of the community at large; the extent to which the people are supplied with the necessaries, comforts, and luxuries of life; such as lodging, clothing, fire, food, machinery of all kinds, professional aid, education, religious instruction, and amusements of all descriptions. On applying this test, it will be found, I imagine, that the reward of labor at this and every other period, and in all parts of the world, bears a direct proportion to the density of population, excepting so far as this result is counteracted by political causes, which can generally be distinctly seen and pointed out. 1 England is precisely the country in which the effect that I ascribe to the increase of population in augmenting the productiveness of labor is most apparent. The reason is that a more than usually large proportional amount has been applied to manufactures, in which there is more room for the improvement of methods, and consequent increase of productiveness than in agriculture. It is calculated that the machinery of all kinds now in use in Great Britain represents the labor of three hundred-some say eight hundredmillions of men. Assuming the former estimate as an approximation to the truth, it follows that the productiveness of labor and the total amount of its products have been augmented, chiefly since the commencement of the present century, 3000 per cent., and that the British nation have at their disposal the means of commanding the labor (or its equivalent in machinery) of three hundred millions of men in other parts of the globe. As the labor of one man employed in agriculture under tolerably favorable circumstances will furnish the means of subsistence for at least three, it follows that the British nation have at their disposal the means of commanding annually agricultural produce sufficient for the subsistence of the whole human race. Excepting so far as their own arbitrary regulations prevent it, the natural operation of the laws of trade would regularly supply them in their own ports with all the foreign grain that might be wanted, at the low prices at which it is sold in the grain-growing countries, with the addition of the regular charge for transportation, calculated at the lowest possible rate. From these considerations, which are obvious and undisputed, it results that, whatever may be the reasons which prevent the reward of individual labor in England from being as high as it naturally should be, they are not to be found, as you suppose, in any deficiency in the supply of the means of subsistence. It is unnecessary for the present purpose, and would carry me far beyond the limits of a letter, to go into the inquiry what these reasons are. The large deductions made by the government from the annual produce of the labor of the country to cover the public expenses and pay the interest on the debt (amounting annually to about three hundred million dollars) are undoubtedly one. The Corn Laws are another. A third is probably to be found in the rapidity with which the immense mass of machinery now in use has been introduced, and which has probably not permitted the increased consumption resulting from the greater cheapness of the articles made by machinery to keep pace fully with the increased supply, so as to continue in employment the same number of men as before. Numbers must have been discharged and as the local situation of England renders it difficult for many of them to find employment elsewhere, the labor market is overstocked, paupers abound, and those who work are obliged to take such wages as they can get. If in a working population of about ten millions, machinery is suddenly introduced, equivalent to the labor of three hundred millions; in other words, if every working man is suddenly enabled to do the work of thirty, supposing the demand for the products of labor to remain about the same, twenty-nine out of every thirty working men will be thrown out of em Union. A slight observation of the condition of the State of Massachusetts, with reference to accumulated capital, public buildings, rail-roads, and other public improvements,--education and religious instruction,-learning and the arts,-navigation, commerce, and manufactures, and the individual accommodation of the people in the way of lodging, clothing, food, and amusements, is sufficient to show that there is all the difference that might be expected, on any view of the subject, in her favor. ployment. If the demand and consequent it is in the less populous parts of the production be doubled by the increased cheapness of the manufactured articles, the labor of two men supplies them, and twenty-eight must still be dismissed. If demand and consumption be ten times greater than before, twenty laborers out of every thirty are, nevertheless, compelled to quit their places; and so of any other proportion. If the whole ten millions were kept in employment, the result would be equivalent to the labor of three thousand millions of men. However great may have been the increase in the total amount of the produce of British labor, occasioned by the introduction of machinery, it has, of course, remained far below this point. Without claiming any thing like strict accuracy for these estimates, which are merely approximative and of the lowest kind, I incline to think that the sudden introduction of this immense amount of machinery has contributed to a greater extent than is generally supposed to the pauperism, distress, and lowness of wages, that are now combined in England with a profusion of national wealth unparalleled in the history of the world. So far as the evils alluded to have arisen from this cause, they can only be remedied by emigration. Where, as generally happens, improve ments are gradually and slowly introduced, the increased demand keeps pace with the increased production, so that no one is thrown out of employment, while all enjoy, in their own consumption, the benefit of the increased cheapness of the article. As to our own country, Massachusetts, the State in which the population is most dense and the soil least productive, is also the wealthiest in the Union. This combination of circumstances settles the question as to the effect of the progress of population upon the reward of labor, unless some particular reasons can be found in the condition of that State for considering it as an exception to the rule rather than an illustration of it. In a community where taxation is very light, and trade comparatively free-with the grain-growing countries of the west entirely so, it is difficult to imagine any cause that should prevent the individual laborer from receiving his just proportion of the whole produce, or, in other words, should prevent the real rate of wages from being higher than The difference on the other side in your estimate,-supposing it to be accurate,-must be accounted for, as I remarked before, by the fact that the western States are a grain-growing country. Good claret wine, such as is commonly sold in our cities at half a dollar a bottle,-can be made in the south of France at about a cent a bottle. Supposing the wages of a French peasant to be about a franc, or twenty cents, a day, and those of a New England laborer about a dollar, the comparative reward of labor in the two countries, estimated in French wine, would be twenty bottles per day in France, and two in New England. Estimated in ice or granite, which have been pleasantly described as the only two natural products of Massachusetts, the reward of labor in that State, as compared with what it is in the west, would appear greater than it really is. But, without going into farther details on this subject, it is certain that, in a community which is really wealthier than another, or, in other words, which receives regularly in return for its labor a larger amount of produce,a comparatively lower rate of wages, if real, cannot be accounted for, as it must be on your system, by the supposition of a deficiency in the supply of the means of subsistence. Before closing this letter, I will advert very briefly to one or two passages in yours, not material to the main argument, but involving some not unimportant errors in fact and opi uon. You say, incidentally, that a popula tion of 640 to the square mile is physically impossible, "because the acre which, in this case, would be allotted to each individual, would be insufficient to supply him with food, clothing. fuel, and the other necessaries and comforts of life." This statement falls of itself, with the general proposition implied in it, that necessary supplies can only be obtained from the territory occupied by the party which is to use them. But, independently of this objection, the statement is liable to the still more direct and peremptory one, that the degree of density in population, which you suppose to be physically impossible, has been actually realized in various parts of the world. The present average population of the kingdom of Belgium is given in a statistical essay now before me, published at Brussels, in 1838, by the chief clerk in the department of finance, and which may be regarded as semi-official, at 125 to the 100 hectares of land, which is about one to every two acres, or 320 to the square mile. Some of the provinces of that kingdom have considerably more than the average density. East Flanders is represented, on the same authority, as having a population of 250 to the 100 hectares, or about double the average density. It reaches, of course, about 640 to the square mile,the density which you suppose to be physically impossible. The population of Holland is, according to my recollection, still more dense than even this; but I have no document at hand from which I can draw the exact figures. That province is said to be the most populous region of equal extent in Christendom and it must, as I should think, appear very singular to those who believe that the inhabitants of every part of the world can only subsist upon the direct produce of the territories they respectively occupy, that the most populous region should produce nothing, with the exception of cheese and butter, and the common garden vegetables, which is employed by the inhabitants as their usual means of subsistence. You say, toward the close of your letter, that you" do not think that any argument can be drawn from the supplies which great cities like London receive from the country. As a half or even a third of the population are sufficient to raise raw produce for the rest, and as the other operations of industry are better carried on in towns, the people of every country naturally distribute themselves into two portions, one in the country and the other in towns; but whether in many small ones or a few large ones, must depend upon the rivers, harbors, and other localities, and on their commerce and manufactures. The progress of population tends to enlarge these cities, but, as we have seen, to lessen the supplies that can be exported, and consequently that can be imported." The argument drawn from the supplies furnished to large cities by the country is that, in every such case, a population occupying a more or less extensive territory, subsists wholly on supplies imported from abroad. In London, for example, a population of more than two millions occupies a territory of perhaps fifteen or twenty square miles in extent, which does not produce anything whatever that can be used as food. Every instance of this kind seems to me to be fatal to a theory which supposes that the inhabitants of every part of the globe must necessarily subsist upon the products of the soil they occupy, and rests upon that supposition as its sole foundation. I do not see that this argument, which appears to me entirely irresistible, is affected by your remarks, as quoted above. When you say "that the progress of population, while it enlarges the cities, tends to lessen the supplies that can be exported, and consequently that can be imported," I understand you to mean that it tends to lessen the amount of agricultural produce which is furnished by the country to the towns. be your meaning, the remark is no doubt true, because a greater quantity will now be wanted for consumption in the country; but this fact has no tendency to show that the population of cities is not supported entirely by supplies from without, or that whole provinces might not, if necessary, be supported in the same way. agree with you in the opinion that the progress of population has, in general, a tendency to diminish the quantity of agricultural produce that can be exported; but the articles which are exported, in exchange for provisions, by a country subsisting on supplies from abroad, are, in general, not the produce of agricultural but of manufacturing labor; and the progress of population tends, as you remark in your letter, to augment very much the amount and the quality of this description of products. In exchange for these, any corresponding amount of imports of any kind that may be wanted can of course, be procured If this I fear, my dear sir, that I have tasked your patience somewhat too severely. I trust, however, that you will consider the length of this letter as a proof of the respect that I feel for your opinions, and of my wish to show you that I have not come to a different conclusion without a full consideration of the subject. I should, of course, adopt, without hesitation, any correction of these conclusions that might appear to be necessary. If you notice any errors in the suggestions that I have now made, you would particularly MONTHLY FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL ARTICLE. THE opening of the crop year the supply of Great Britain at remu1846 is marked with most perfect nerating prices; and by so doing, enequalization of exchanges through- hance the value of the whole producout the Union and abroad. They tion in this country, and laying the have varied from the par a fraction foundation of a large and healthy busiof one per cent. only for the last twelve months, in which time an extraordinary amount of produce has been sent to market. Money is very abundant, and easily procured at six per ct.; and the crops being now gathered in all sections of the country, were never more abundant or of better quality. Prices of all descriptions are unaffected by speculation, and therefore not exposed to an unhealthy reaction, but are every way well situated to take the best advantage of events as they transpire in Europe. At such a moment there is every probability that the harvest of England will prove short either in quantity or quality, and, therefore, that our abundant and cheap farm produce will come greatly in demand for ness. It has been the case heretofore, that when the price of food in Great Britain is high, by reason of an exorbitant tax coming in aid of a deficient harvest, that the consumption of goods is much diminished, and a fall in cotton takes place in consequence. Hence whatever advantages our farmers might derive from the sale of their produce, are counteracted by the losses of the cotton growers. This change becomes apparent in the following figures, showing the quantities actually admitted to consumption in England from July 1838 to January 1843, and the rates of duty paid, with the average price in England to regulate those duties: There were near 2,000,000 qrs. admitted at 72s. The price now needs be but 66s. to admit the same quantity at the same rate of duty, being a reducconsumption of other goods is obviated. It will also be taken into the account that the duty on beef, pork and animals has been so far modified since the last failure of the crops, as to admit those articles to consumption in England in seasons of comparatively low prices, and that the duty on cotton, which amounted to 12 per cent. last year, has been removed. The ability of the United States to supplant all other countries in the supply of the desired breadstuffs, is greater than ever. At the time of the failure of the English harvest in 1837, there had been accumulated in the seaports of the north of Europe large stocks of grain, the surplus production of the corn countries during the five previous years, in which the English harvests had been good, and she had imported nothing. Those accumulated stocks had depressed the Wheat imported into G. B. tion of near nine per cent. in the level of prices which regulate the duties. To this extent, therefore, the effect of the high price of food in checking the prices to a very low point. It came to be true, however, that the first demand for wheat for English consumption caused prices to advance throughout the continent in the year 1837. In 1838, the English import amounted to 14,550,624 bushels of wheat, and the average price in five leading ports of Europe advanced from 25s. 9d. per quarter in 1837, to 42s. 4d. in 1839, at which rate it has been maintained since the failure of the English harvest of 1837. Great Britain has imported wheat as seen in the following table, as compared with the exports of United States flour and wheat, reduced to bushels of wheat, to Great Britain and her North American colonies. Also the price of flour per barrel on the first Wednesday of September in New York of each year : 7 96 775 It is evident that extraordinary high prices in the United States down to the year 1840, were a bar to any extended import from this country until the granaries of Europe becoming exhausted, the prices rose on the continent. During the last two years, however, the United States have supplied to Great Britain nearly one-fourth of her import. and we are now on the eve of a harvest, perhaps, more abundant than ever known, with prices lower almost than ever before. This is a position which cannot fail to result in a large export of farm produce to England, and in so doing fully sustain the exchanges, if not induce a renewed import of specie. The imports of goods will probably not exceed the amounts due this country for the proceeds of its produce sold abroad. The larger the exports may be, the greater must necessarily be the returns. These will come in that shape which offers the best remittance, and this again depends upon the state of business here. In 1843, when a very large amount of bank paper had been withdrawn from circulation, and there was actually a scarcity of currency—a state of affairs always accompanied by low prices of goods-it happened that the new tariff greatly enhanced the cost of goods delivered here. Under these circumstances specie was the best remittance, and $23,000,000 were imported. That import has replenished the currency, and, aided by a continued extension of bank credits, has somewhat raised the general level of prices, and, therefore, admits to importation some goods of the lowest rates of tax, previously excluded. A large export of |