----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Jeff, I appreciate your thoughtful reply.  Your picture implies that the 
growing population would suffice to lower the standard of living in the 
countryside sufficiently to drive the desired number of workers into 
employment -- if I understand you correctly.  From what I understand, the 
standard of living in the countryside had been deteriorating for some time 
prior to the Industrial Revolution.  Like people elsewhere, the rural 
population in Britain did not want to break its links with its traditional 
way of life -- of course, in making such a claim, I'm making a broad 
generalization that will not be universally true. 
 
The willingness of the hand loom weavers to hang on despite ever worsening 
conditions with the testimony to this stubborn adherence to a traditional 
way of life. 
 
The reduction of protein from a prohibition of hunting is only part of the 
story that I told.  Even more important, was the destruction of crops 
resulting from the game laws.  Then, too, I only mentioned the game laws in 
response to Tony's initial comment.  The story of the game laws make up 
only a part of one chapter in the book. 
 
John Stuart Mill was unique among the classical political economists in his 
support for peasant agriculture.  Smith, Ricardo, and even Malthus occupied 
the other end of the spectrum.  Their views constitute a far greater 
portion of the book. 
 
Michael Perelman 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]