Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

plicated, is proposed, I am always suspicious of its con

sequences.

Caroline. But the good that would result is so evident; if food were cheaper, people would be able to consume more, and the poor would have plenty.

Mrs B. How so; would the land be more productive in consequence of the abolition of rent? and if more should not be produced, how could the people consume more? An increased consumption without an increased supply will, as we have remarked on a former occasion, lead to a famine. The price of a quartern loaf is now one shilling; I conclude therefore, that at that price the consumption of bread will be so proportioned to the quantity wanted, that the stock of wheat will last till the next harvest. The adoption of your compulsory measures might reduce the price of a quartern loaf to ninepence, and every poor family being thus enabled to increase their consumption of bread, the stock of wheat would not last out till the ensuing harvest. Then the following year, instead of raising more corn to make up the deficiency, the poorest land which yields no rent, and but just affords the profits of capital at the present price of raw produce, would, by such a diminution of price, be thrown out of cultivation; and the produce of the country would thus be considerably diminished.

Caroline. Very true. I did not foresee that consequence. And a scarcity would perhaps raise the price of bread higher than it was before.

Mrs B. How much would it be necessary for bread to rise in price in order to make the corn last till the next crops came in?

Caroline. To the price at which it now sells, one shilling.

538. What would be the consequence of an increased consumption without an increased supply of provisions?--539. How would Caroline's scheme affect the price of a loaf of bread, and what would be the consequence?-540. What would follow the next year?

Mrs B. We return then to the rent-price, though no rent is paid you see, therefore, the fallacy of your measures. The high price, of which you, so bitterly complain, is the price necessary to proportion the consumption to the supply, so as to make it last till the ensuing harvest.

Caroline. So far from being mortified, Mrs B. I am delighted with my disappointment, as it has been the means of convincing me that if the poor are obliged to pay a high rice for the necessaries of life, it is for their own benefit, as well as that of the mighty lords of the land; since it ensures them a uniform supply throughout the year. And I the more willingly acquit rent of the accusation of high prices, since I find that there are two other sources from whence that evil may spring.

Mrs B. I think you may add, that as these high prices are necessary to regulate the consumption and prevent scarcity, or even famine, you no longer consider them as an evil. An inquiry into the effects of human laws and institutions often discovers error; but whatever flows in the course of nature springs from a pure source, and the more accurately we examine it, the more admiration we shall feel for its author.

Thus though rent cannot in itself be considered as an evil, since we have traced it to the natural fertility of the earth, and its diversity of soil; yet every artificial measure which tends to raise the price of agricultural produce, so as to enable the farmer to pay a higher rent, is certainly injurious. Therefore restrictions on the free importation of corn, or any other species of raw produce, which raises the price of those articles at home, is taking an additional sum out of the pockets of the con

541. For what does Mrs. B. say the high price of bread is necessary?-542. Does she think the high price of bread an evil?543.

To what is rent to be traced?- -544. What does Mrs B. say is certainly injurious in relation to the price of agricultural products?-545. What is said of restrictions on the importation of corn into a country?

sumer to put into that of the landlord. For rent may be considered as a necessary tax which the consumer pays to the landlord; the farmer is merely the vehicle of conveyance from the one to the other.

Caroline. And has such a measure immediately the effect of raising rents?

Mrs B. Not until the leases are expired; during their existence the farmer enjoys all the adventitious gains or suffers all the losses that may occur, but when his lease is renewed it must correspond with the rate of profit, and rise or fall in proportion to the gains which the farmer expects to make, so as to give the whole of the surplus produce to the landlord, and leave only the. usual profits of capital to the farmer. It may happen, indeed, either from ignorance or carelessness, and sometimes from motives of humanity, that the landlord does not exact all that the farmer can afford to pay; but these are accidental circumstances, and the whole of the surplus produce is considered as the fair and usual rent. The contract between the farmer and the landlord is naturally in favor of the latter, for this reason: every man possessed of a little capital is capable of engaging in a farm, and as the land to be let is limited in extent, there are always more men desirous of renting farms than there are farms to be let. The landholders may, therefore, be considered as exercising a species of monopoly towards farmers, being possessed of a commodity the demand for which exceeds the supply; competition to obtain it therefore, enables the landholder to exact the highest rent which the farmer can afford to pay; that is,

546. For how long time does the farmer enjoy the adventitious gains, or suffer all the losses which occur, from such restrictions?- -547. What is considered the fair and usual rent of lands?-548. Why is the contract between the farmer and the landlord usually in favor of the latter?-549. What monopoly do landholders exercise towards the farmers?

to relinquish the whole of the surplus produce of agriculture to the landlord.

Caroline. I do not exactly know the meaning of the term monopoly; but I had always understood it to be a very unjust and improper thing.

Mrs B. Monopoly is the exclusive privilege of any person, or set of persons, to possess or sell any particular commodity. When sanctioned by government it is generally prejudicial, because it prevents the free competition of other sellers, which would tend to the reduction. of the price of the commodity in question. Thus if any set of men were exclusively privileged to deal in tea or coffee, there being no rival traders to enter into competition with and undersell them, they can raise the price of those articles higher than will afford the usual profits, and the extra profit is unfairly taken from the consumers of tea and sugar. Granting a monopoly is therefore a very improper measure of government, excepting in cases in which it can be proved that the restrictions imposed are of general benefit to the community.

Caroline. I cannot conceive any case in which general good can result from giving one set of men such an advantage over the rest of the community.

Mrs B. To grant a patent for a useful discovery or invention is authorizing a temporary monopoly, which is decidedly advantageous, from the encouragement it affords to ingenuity, investigation, and perseverance; qualities which, are highly beneficial to the progress of industry. But I wonder that you should hesitate respecting the advantages derived from the monopoly of land; for this monopoly simply means, that the land shall not

550. What is to be understood by the term monopoly?—-551. When is it chiefly detrimental?- -552. What case of monopoly is mentioned in illustration?-----553. In what cases may government with propriety grant a monopoly?--554. What is said of patents for useful discoveries?- -555. What is to be understood by monopoly

in lands?

belong in common to all mankind, as nature designed it, but that it shall be exclusively possessed, sold, or disposed of by a particular set of men ;-in short, it is nothing more than the institution of property in land, the advantages of which are so unquestionable. It is perhaps the only monopoly of a permanent nature which the law ought to sanction. If the monopoly extended to the produce of the earth, it would then indeed partake of the evil effect of monopolies in general-excess of price, owing to deficiency of competition.

Caroline. But can land be a monopoly, without the price of its produce being affected by it?

Mrs B. Yes: because the produce of the land. depends not so much upon the quantity of land as upon the quantity of capital employed on it, and this is comparatively unlimited and perfectly free from monopoly. Property in land, is therefore a monopoly of a very peculiar nature, confined entirely to one of the instruments of production; and so far is it from raising the price of the fruits of the earth, that it is absolutely necessary both to their production and to their preservation.

CONVERSATION XIII.

ON REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE CULTIVATION OF LAND.

Two capitals employed on land.-Two revenues derived from it. Of the capital and profits of the farmer.Of the duration and terms of leases. Of tythes.Extract from Paley. Of proprietors farming their own estates.-Extract from Townsend's travels.Farms held in administration.-Advantage of an

556. Why would excess of price result from monopoly in the price of provisions?-557. Why can there be a monopoly in land without raising the price of its productions?

« VorigeDoorgaan »