54 Slaney on Sural Expenditure. 



be benefited by a repeal of the Corn Laws, paying the same 

 wages after their repeal as he did while they were in force ? 

 Hence it is quite clear, that if a repeal of the Corn Laws, and 

 the consequent lowering of the price of corn, benefit the 

 labourer, it must, for precisely the same reason, be of no 

 service to the manufacturer; and, on the other hand, if the 

 repeal be of service to the manufacturer, by lowering the rate 

 of wages along with the price of corn, it can be of no benefit 

 to the labourer whose wages are so lowered; or, more shortly, 

 and in other words, it is impossible that the same measure 

 should benefit both the payer and receiver of wages : the first 

 is benefited in proportion as he pays little, the latter in pro- 

 portion to the quantity he receives. 



Our second position is, that the present agricultural popu- 

 lation receive a smaller proportion of the produce of their 

 labour than their ancestors did. This position may easily 

 and shortly be made out. 



It follows, indeed, in some respect, but not to its fullest 

 extent, from the first position ; for it is obvious, that if the 

 wages of the agricultural population command a less quantity 

 of wheat at present than they did a century or two centuries 

 ago, they must command a smaller proportion of the produce 

 of their labour than they did a century or two centuries ago, 

 unless we suppose that the produce of their labour has 

 diminished in the same ratio as their wages. The contrary, 

 however, is the fact; the produce of land per acre, so far from 

 having fallen off, is greatly increased : even supposing, there- 

 fore, that wages had not been lowered, still, the produce being- 

 increased, the ratio of wages to the produce of labour must 

 be diminished. Hence it follows, as, on the one hand, wages 

 are lower, and the produce of labour is greater, the pro- 

 portional diminution of wages to the produce of labour 

 must be greater than it would have been, either by the single 

 circumstance of lower wages and the same produce, or the 

 same wages with greater produce ; the ratio of diminution 

 being in fact compounded of the ratio of lower wages and of 

 larger produce. 



Perhaps, however, we shall render our meaning more clear 

 and intelligible by a supposed case. Let us, then, suppose 

 that in the sixteenth century a week's labour would command 

 four bushels of wheat, and that the produce per acre was then 

 twelve bushels ; it is evident that at this period a week's labour 

 gave the labourer one-third of the produce of an acre* 

 whereas, if he were obliged to work, in the 18th or 



