The unequal division of property, as has been shewn, arises partly from bad laws, and partly from neglect of regulation; it is, indeed, one of the most delicate points to interfere in; nevertheless, as it has been proved, that laws do already interfere between a man and the use of his property, (and that it is, in some cases, necessary that they should do so) the question is reduced to one of circ.u.mstances and expediency, it is not one to be determined, in the abstract, on principle. It is also of too nice a nature to be touched roughly by general regulation; but, if large estates in land, and large farms, were taxed higher in proportion than small ones, it would counteract, to a certain degree, the tendency of landed property to acc.u.mulate in any one person"s hand; and, except in land, property seldom remains long enough in one family to acc.u.mulate to a dangerous degree. {213}
{213} Besides the above truth, of other property being liable to be dissipated from its nature the law of primogeniture does not attach on it, and the evil, if it did, would not be any way considerable.
[end of page #280]
The increased consumption of a nation, which we have found one of the causes of decline that increases with its wealth, may be more effectually prevented than any other; not by interfering with the mode in which individuals expend their wealth, but by managing it so that vegetable food shall always be in abundance; and if so, the high prices of animal food, and the low price of vegetables will answer the purpose of counteracting the taste for the former, which is the cause of the dearth, and brings on depopulation; and therefore its hurtful effect will be prevented. {214}
To this, gentlemen of landed property may object, and no doubt will object, but let them consider how rapidly ruin is coming on. At the rate matters now go, it would not be a surprising, but a natural effect, if most of the fields in Britain were converted into pasture, and our chief supply of corn obtained from abroad. The rent of land would, indeed, be doubled, the wages of labour would rise more than in an equal proportion, and a very few years would complete the ruin of this country. The landed proprietors surely would not, for any momentary gain, risk the ruin of themselves and of their country, for both may be the consequence of persisting in this system. {215} Or, if they will persist in it, will the government, which has other interests to consult and to protect, allow that single one to swallow up all the rest?
It is true, the freedom of trade will be invoked; but the freedom of
{214} Suppose that, of the waste lands, eleven millions of acres were cultivated, and that as much as possible (suppose five millions) were always in grain, those five millions would be able to supply the nation nearly in an ordinary year. A law might also be made, compelling all landlords and farmers to have only three-fourths in gra.s.s; this could be no hardship. There would then be always corn in plenty; monopoly would be prevented, because anxiety would be avoided; for a real deficiency to a small amount gives cause to great anxiety and grievous monopoly. The waste lands, when disposed of, might have whatever condition attached to them was thought fit.
{215} We say persisting in this system, for when bread fell to be at a moderate price, last summer, (1804,) the outcry amongst the farmers was great and violent, and the legislature altered the law about exports; the consequence of this was, that the price of wheat rose regularly every week till it was doubled. All this was the effect of opinion, for the price of corn rose too quickly to allow any to be sent out of the kingdom, by the new law.
[end of page #281]
trade is a principle not to be adopted without limitation, but with due regard to times and circ.u.mstances; let it then never be invoked upon a general question, without examination. Though this is the true way of arguing the question, let freedom of trade be taken in another way; let it be considered as a general principle, it will then be immutable, and cannot be changed. {216} The present corn-laws must on that principle be done away, and no bounty allowed for exportation or for importation, which indeed would be the best way; but, at all events, let us have one weight and one measure for both parties, and not invoke freedom of trade to protect the corn-dealers when prices are high, and enact laws to counteract the effects of plenty, which produces low prices.
On this subject, government must set itself above every consideration, but that of the welfare of the country: it is too important to be trifled with, or to be bartered for any inferior consideration.
The prices of our manufactures will soon become too high for other nations. Our inventions, to abbreviate labour, cannot be perpetual, and, in some cases, they can go no farther than they have already gone; besides, the same inventions, copied by nations where labour is cheaper, give them still a superiority over us.
If increased consumption was the leading cause of the destruction of Rome, to which money was sent from tributary nations, and employed to purchase corn, (so that its supply was independent of its industry,) how much more forcible and rapid must be its effects in this country, living by manufactures, and having no other means to procure a supply from strangers, when that is necessary? {217}
The burthens of our national taxes continuing the same, those for
{216} When corn was dear, and the public cry was for regulation, it was announced, in the highest quarters, that trade was free. Ministers acted as if they had been the colleagues of of =sic= the economist Turgot; but, when prices fell, the language was changed, and new regulations were made. Compare the Duke of Portland"s letter, in 1799, with the act for the exportation of grain, in 1804.
{217} The money sent out of the country for corn is a direct diminution of the balance due to us from other nations, and it now amounts to near three millions a year on an average. The balance in our favour is not much more than twice that sum at the most, and was not equal to that till lately: the imports of grain may soon turn the balance against us.
[end of page #282]
the poor increasing, our means diminishing; what could possibly produce a more rapid decline?
The danger is too great and too evident to require any thing farther to be said; particularly as the last ten years have taught us so much, by experience.
It is unnecessary to repeat what was said about the mode of reducing the interest of the national debt without setting too much capital afloat; without breaking faith with the creditors of the state, or burthening the industry of the country.
On the increase of the poor and the means of diminishing their numbers enough has been said. That must originate with government in every case and in some cases exclusively belongs to it. They must act of themselves entirely, with respect to the very poor and to their children. With those who are not quite reduced to poverty, they should grant aid, to enable them to struggle against adversity, and prevent their offspring from becoming burthensome to the public.
The other affairs well attended to, capital and industry will lose their tendency to leave the country; and, if they should continue to leave it, the case will be desperate; for, after the lands are improved, and the best encouragement given to the employment of capital, and to the greatest extent nothing more can be done. It will find employment elsewhere.
The efficacy of a remedy, like every thing else in this world, has a boundary, but the extent and compa.s.s of that depends, in a great degree, on exertion and skill, and particularly so in the present instance. It remains with the government to make that exertion, either directly itself, or by putting individuals in the way to make it.
The government of a country must then interfere, in an active manner, in the prevention of the interior causes of decline. As to the exterior ones, they do not depend on a country itself; but, so far as they do, it is exclusively on the government, and in no degree on the individual inhabitants.
The envy and enmity which superior wealth create, can only be diminished by the moderation and justice with which a nation conducts itself towards others; and if they are sufficiently envious and [end of page #283] unfair to persist, a nation like Britain has nothing to fear. But we must separate from envy and enmity occasioned by the possession of wealth, that envy and enmity that are excited by the unjust manner in which wealth is acquired.
In respect to Britain, it has been shewn, that the envy and enmity excited, are chiefly by her possessions in the East Indies; we have seen, also, that the wealth obtained by those possessions is but very inconsiderable, and that they have, at least, brought on one-third of our national debt; it would then be well, magnanimously to state the question, and examine whether we ought not to abandon the possession of such unprofitable, such expensive, and such a dangerous acquisition; till we do so, it is to be feared that we shall never have a true friend, nor be without a bitter enemy.
We have had experience from America, which is become precious to us now, that we have lost it, and which was a mill-stone about our neck, while we were in possession of it. Let us take a lesson from experience, and apply its result to what is at this moment going on, and we cannot mistake the conclusion to be formed. Let the nation be above the little vanity of retaining a thing, merely because it has possessed it. {218} Let the great general outline of happiness, and of permanent happiness, be considered, and not that ephemerical splendour and opulence, that gilded pomp that remains but for a day, and leaves a nation in eternal poverty and want. Britain can only be firm and just in its conduct towards other nations, give up useless possessions, defend its true rights to the last point, encourage industry at home, and take every step to prevent the operation of those causes of decline that we have been examining; let merit be encouraged, and
{218} In this country, public opinion would be against a minister, who proposed to give up any possession abroad, however useless. This is owing to the pride occasioned by wealth. The people are not rapacious for conquests, but once in possession they are very unwilling to let them go.
It is not necessary to quit the trade to India, or abandon all our possessions, but to diminish our establishments, circ.u.mscribe our conquests, and not aim at possessing more than we had thirty years ago. That moderation would conciliate all nations, and envy would find its occupation gone.
[end of page #284]
let it never be forgotten or lost sight of, that wealth and greatness can only be supported, for a length of time, by industry and abilities well directed, guided by justice and fair intention. This is the truth of which we are never to lose sight. We may keep sounding for the bottom, and reconnoitring the sh.o.r.e, the better to direct our steps, but we must never lose sight of the beacon, with the help of which alone we can safely enter the wished-for harbour.
There is a great disposition in the human mind to give the law, when there is the power of doing it. The abuse of power appears to be natural and dangerous; yet, we have seen, that most nations, both ancient and modern, have fallen into that error. The hour of British insolence has also been mentioned, and, certainly, with regard to America, we did not more materially mistake our power than we did the rights of those with whom we had to treat.
It is much to be questioned, whether the undaunted and brave spirit of our naval commanders does not, in some cases, lead them too far in their rencontres with vessels of other nations on the high seas, and we ought not to forget that, in this case, the match played is that of England against all the world. As no other nation is under the same circ.u.mstances with this, no one will be inclined to take our part, or to wink at, or pardon, any error we may commit.
The Hans Towns, at one time, were paramount at sea; they could bid defiance to all the world; and, at first, they did great actions, and employed their power to a good purpose. They destroyed the pirates, and humbled the Danes, after they had robbed both the English and French, and burnt both London and Paris; but they also had their hour of insolence. They began to be unjust, and to be insolent, and the cities that had begged to be united to them, in the times when their conduct was honourable and wise, withdrew from the partic.i.p.ation of their injustice, pride, and arrogance. While they attended to protecting themselves, and to following their own affairs, they did numberless good offices to the ships of foreign nations; they had universal good will and commanded admiration. But, when they became supercilious, and a terror to others, their pride was soon humbled, never again to rise. [end of page #285]
In considering the whole, there is a considerable degree of consolation arises to British subjects, to see the very mistaken comparisons that have, in the first place, been made between Rome and Carthage; and, in the second place, the still more unfair comparison made between those two rival powers, and France and England.
As opinion and belief have a great power over the minds of men, whether they act in conformity to their views and wishes, or in opposition to them, it is of great importance to remove an error, which was of very long standing, very general, and had the direct tendency to make the people of both countries think the parallel well drawn, and therefore conclude that this mercantile country must, sooner or later, sink under the power of France. But, when it appears that most authors have been inadvertently led into the same mistake, with respect to those two ancient republics, and that, even if there had not been the mistake, the parallel drawn would not have been true, then France will probably cease to found her hopes on that comparison, and we may, at least, cease to feel any apprehension from so ill-grounded a cause.
That a nation once gone on in the career of opulence can never go back with impunity is as certain as its tendency to going back is. The possession of riches is of a transitory nature, and their loss attended with innumerable evils. Though nations in affluence, like men in health, refuse to follow any regimen, and use great freedom with themselves, yet they should consider there is a vast difference. A man, well and in health, is in his natural state; yet even that will not resist too much liberty taken with his const.i.tution; but a nation that has risen to more wealth than others is always in an artificial state, insomuch as it owes its superiority, not to nature, but either to peculiar circ.u.mstances, our =sic--sc.: or = superior exertion and care; it is therefore not to be supposed capable of being preserved, without some of that attention and care, which are necessary to all nations under similar circ.u.mstances, and which, in the history of the world, we have not yet seen one nation able to resist.
There are sufficient circ.u.mstances, new and favourable in the [end of page #286] case of Britain, to inspire us with the courage necessary for making the effort.
There is one part of the application of this Inquiry, to the British dominions, left intentionally incomplete. It has been left so with a design to keep clear of those discussions that awaken a spirit of party, which prevents candid attention. It is of little use to enquire, unless those who read can do it without prevention or prejudice. It is therefore, very necessary not to awaken those feelings, by adding any thing that may rouse a spirit of party; and it is difficult to touch matters that concern men, deeply interested in an object, without that danger. What seems impartial to an unconcerned man, seems partial to those who are concerned; and sometimes the observer is blamed by both the parties, between whom he thinks he is keeping in the middle way.
The advantages of the form of government adopted in Britain have been fairly stated in account; but const.i.tutions and forms of government, however good, are only so in the degree; they are never perfect, and have all a tendency to wear out, to get worse, and to get enc.u.mbered. The French were the first, perhaps, that ever tried the mad scheme of remedying this by making a const.i.tution that could be renewed at pleasure. But it was a violent remedy, to implant, in the const.i.tution itself, the power of its own destruction, under the idea of renovation. The English const.i.tution has taken, perhaps, the best way that is possible for this purpose; it has given to king, lords, and commons, the power of counteracting each other, and so preserving its first principles. Without going into that inquiry, it is sufficient to say, that the advantages which may be derived from the British const.i.tution can only be expected by the three different powers having that will, and exercising it; for, if they should act together on a system of confidence, without an attention to preserving the balance, they must overset, instead of navigating the vessel.
The individuals of whom a nation is composed, we have seen, never can, by their efforts, prevent its decline, as their natural propensities tend to bring it on. It is to the rulers of nations we must look for the [end of page #287] prolongation of prosperity, which they cannot accomplish, unless they look before them, and, in place of seeking for remedies, seek for preventatives.
It is very natural and very common for those who wield the power of a great nation, to trust to the exertion of that power, when the moment of necessity arrives; but that will seldom, if ever, be found to answer.
The time for the efficacy of remedy will be past before the evil presents itself in the form of pressing necessity; and that very power, which can so effectually be applied in other cases, in this will be diminished, and found unequal to what it has to perform.
[end of page #288]
_Application of the present Inquiry to Nations in general_
IF there is a lesson taught by political economy that is of greater importance than any other, it is, that industry, well directed, is the way to obtain wealth; and that the modes by which nations sought after it in the early and middle ages, by war and conquest, are, in comparison, very ineffectual.
Notwithstanding that princes themselves are now convinced of the truth of this, by a strange fatality, the possession of commercial wealth has itself become the cause of wars, not less ruinous than those that formerly were the chief occupation of mankind.