to impair the obligation of any contract binding on the general principles of the law of contracts, such statutes are unconsti tutional and void. The states, by consenting to this clause in the federal constitution, relinquished the power of employing the rescindment or nullification of contracts as one of the sanctions of their penal laws. If the states have the power to make a law invalidating all contracts made on Sunday, then, by extending this principle to each day of the week, one after the other, they may invalidate all contracts. If, under cover of a penal law, they can nullify any particular kind of contract, then, by inflicting a penalty of five dollars on the making of any contract at all for the payment of money or the doing of any particular thing in futuro, they may cut up the whole law of contracts by the roots.

The Supreme Court of the United States have taken a just distinction between the obligation of a contract and the remedy for its enforcement. The states have a right to modify the remedy, but they have no right to impair the obligation, either by taking away the remedy altogether, or by declar ing such and such contracts not binding, which, but for such special acts of legislation, would have been so. This plainly does not touch the case of bargains which are void because they are against good morals; where the invalidity does not arise out of a particular statute, but out of the general principles of the law. The clause in the Constitution which deprives the state legislatures of the right of nullifying contracts, still leaves that power in the hands of the courts, to be exercised, however, not as the instrument and at the will of the legislature, but by their own inherent authority, and only according to the dictates of eternal justice.

This is not a case which requires or admits of much argument. The whole matter lies in a nut-shell. It is only neces sary to put the clause in the Constitution and the Sunday act of our legislature, as expounded and understood by the court, in juxtaposition, to see that they cannot stand together so far as to have any effect upon contracts. Here is contract binding in foro conscientiæ, and if there is any thing really sacred or peculiar in Sunday, then for that very reason, in the sight of God, still more binding; here is a contract good according to the general principles of morals, and good by the common law independently of statute modification, and here comes in a state law and declares that contract void! If this is not a law impairing the obligation of contracts, it is exceedingly difficult

to imagine what would be. If this view of the case be correct, and we feel great confidence that the Supreme Court of the United States, on a writ of error, would sustain it, — it saves the horse-trades and the marriages; but as a will is no contract, being a mere gift or grant to operate in futuro, Sunday wills would still be left in jeopardy. It is probable, however, if the rest of their doctrine on this subject were thrown overboard, in disgust at this forced abandonment of antiquated austerities, or perhaps secretly rejoicing at it, the Court would discover some way of releasing themselves from the necessity of preventing people from making wills on Sunday.

Apart, indeed, from this objection founded on the Constitution of the United States, it seems to us quite impossible to reconcile the Sunday laws and some others existing on our statute book with the provisions of the Constitution of Massachusetts. We know that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have, by a recent decision, sustained the constitutionality of the Sunday laws of that state. We admit, also, that the reasoning of our own Supreme Court, in the case of Commonwealth vs. Kneeland, would go the whole length of sustaining the Sunday laws, and of hanging people for heresy, too, had that old colonial law happened to have remained on our statute book. But in the whole multitudinous volumes of the Massachesetts reports, there is not a worse reasoned or weaker case than Commonwealth vs. Kneeland, as we hope to take some early opportunity to show.

ART. V. European Agriculture and Rural Economy. From Professional Observation. BY HENRY COLMAN, Honorary Member of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, of the National Agricultural Society of France, and of the National Agricultural Society of the United States. 1849. Boston: Little & Brown. London: John Petheram. 2nd Edition: 2 vols. 8vo. pp. XXVI. and 492, and XXIV. and 588.

THE agricultural mission of Mr. Colman to Europe we consider as a favorable sign of the times. Much the greater part of Mr. Colman's work is devoted to English agriculture, or that of the United Kingdom, where improvement has advanced with the most rapid pace and on the largest scale.

Mr. Colman's object was to give as full and accurate an account as was practicable of the Agriculture and Rural Economy of the United Kingdom, and of several states on the continent. His residence abroad for more than five years, and his extensive and intimate acquaintance with the most intelligent landholders and farmers, distinguished for their practical skill, and his opportunities for observation, gave him greater advantages for a thorough knowledge of his subject, than have been enjoyed by any of his countrymen. His great care to avoid any approach to a violation of the confidence of social life is very commendable, and forms quite a contrast to the practice of some American tourists.

Mr. Colman has long been well known to the public as an author in more than one department of knowledge; but for some years past he has devoted his attention to agriculture as a practical farmer, and more especially to collecting agricultural information, and diffusing it among his fellow-citizens by his various publications.

For some years he was the Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of Massachusetts, until, from an ill-judged economy, as we thought, the office was abolished. Perhaps, however, this is not to be regretted, if it has been the cause of his agricultural tour in Europe, to which we owe the two volumes before us. Mr. Colman remarks:

"I am not for the first time on trial before the public. It is now approaching forty years since I first interested myself in the improvement of the agriculture of my country; and during that whole time, few months have passed without some contributions on the subject from my pen to the public press. Whether, therefore, my writings are practical or not, the public have ample opportunity to judge."

"I claim no merit for myself but that of being a careful collector of what I deem valuable facts within my own or the agricultural experience of others; and of stating these facts truly and perspicuously. I have carefully avoided all speculations and theories not fully confirmed; and my constant study has been to make my statements intelligible to the humblest, and, if possible, at the same time, attractive to persons of cultivated minds. I have been most anxious to raise the profession of agriculture from its low estate to its proper dignity, as a humane and intellectual profession."

Many agricultural experiments have been tried in England, of which an accurate account would be highly instructive to an American farmer. The risk and expense of these enter

prises may have been much beyond his ability, but he may derive much benefit from their success. The various improvements in husbandry, the thorough and complete tillage, the choice and application of manures, the rotation of crops, draining, irrigation, and the various modes of reclaiming land, may serve as useful guides for operations on a much smaller scale.

The British Islands, in round numbers, contain about 120,000 square miles, or about 76,000,000 acres. England and Wales, or South Britain, comprise nearly one half of this ter ritory, and Scotland and Ireland each not far from one fourth, Great Britain being nearly three times as large as the neighbouring Emerald Isle. The territory of the two islands is somewhat larger than the New England states, with New York and New Jersey, or about fifteen times larger that the state of Massachusetts.

According to the most accurate calculations, the population of England and Wales, in the year 1700, amounted to about 5,134,000. That is, from the Roman conquest of Britain, during a term of more than sixteen centuries of what Burke calls civilizing conquests and civilizing settlements, the number of inhabitants had only grown to a little more than five millions. Half a century later, in the year 1750, it had increased, by the same computation, to 6,039,000, or about 900,000 in fifty years. During the next fifty years, or up to the year 1801, the population, according to the census, had risen to 9,187,000, or an increase of considerable more than three millions.

At the last census, in 1841, England and Wales contained 15,907,000 inhabitants, or an increase in forty years of 6,700,000, nearly ten millions more than in 1750, and three times the number at the period when the English, under King William, were able to check the ambitious projects of Louis XIV., and also when, a few years later, the Duke of Marlborough was in the full career of his victories over France.

Thus the increase of population in England and Wales, in fifty years from 1700 to 1750, was nearly 18 per cent.; in fifty years from 1750 to 1800, nearly 52 per cent.; in forty years from 1800 to 1840, or, which is nearly the same, from 1801 to 1841, nearly 73 per cent.

By the next census, in 1851, it will probably be found that the population of England and Wales has doubled, or nearly so, during the last fifty years.

The increase of agricultural produce has not quite kept pace with the progress of population, but comes near the same ratio. There has been, as is well known, a large import of foreign grain into the British Islands during the last two or three years, though small compared with the whole consumption. We believe it will be found that for no five years in succession, even including the late years of famine, has the average import of foreign grain been equal to one tenth, or at most one eighth of the home production. It is supposed, on good authority, that the total growth of all kinds of grain is three times greater now than it was eighty or ninety years ago.

England, in 1688, to encourage her agriculture, gave a bounty on the export of grain, five shillings a quarter for wheat, and half that sum for barley. For about seventy years, from 1695, after the bounty had time to operate, to 1765, England, besides feeding her own population, exported annually to foreign countries on an average five hundred thousand quarters of wheat and other grain.

It is remarkable that, from 1640 to 1690, the average price of wheat was upwards of fifty-four shillings a quarter, and that for the latter period of seventy years, ending in 1765, the average price was but thirty-six shillings, or two thirds of the former price.

Since 1765, it may be said that the English have ceased to export grain; they have become importers. For twenty-five years, up to 1790, the average import was about 300,000 quarters. But if we include the next ten years to 1800, the annual average import was about 700,000 quarters of all kinds of grain.

England, at present, Mr. Colman says, exhibits a more brilliant example than has ever before been witnessed, of the application of mind to agriculture. The practice of agriculture, and the philosophy of it are matters of universal interest. Men of all ranks and conditions are laboring in the great cause. Agricultural improvement is one of the most fashionable occupations with the English nobility and gentry, and the abundant wealth of the great landholders, enables them to make experiments, and prosecute plans of improving and reclaiming land, on a much larger scale than would be thought of elsewhere.

In the steady and increasing demand for agricultural produce at a good price, the farmer of England has had the advantage over all other countries. A far greater portion of