----------------- 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]