_In what Manner and according to what Proportion do Plenty and Scarcity
affect a People?_
In a former chapter I have examined this question, relatively to mankind
fed by the hand of nature: I now come nearer home, and shall keep close
to modern times, considering circumstances and effects which by daily
experience we see and feel.
I have often said, that numbers are in proportion to the produce of the
earth. I now say, that in most countries of Europe, the food produced in
the country is _nearly_ consumed by the inhabitants: and by _nearly_ I
understand, that the part exported bears a small proportion to the
home-consumption. I do by no means establish this as an universal
proposition; but I say it is true _for the most part_: and the intention
of this chapter is to enable us to judge how far these limitations
should extend. I allow, for example, that Holland, not producing food
for its inhabitants, must draw it from some country which produces a
superfluity, regularly: but let it be observed that Poland, Germany,
Flanders, and England, with many other countries, contribute their
contingents to supply the demand of the Dutch; and of several large
trading towns which have small territories. This being the case, the
quota furnished by each country, must be in a small proportion to the
respective quantity growing in it. But these are general conclusions
upon vague suppositions, which throw no light on the question. I shall
therefore endeavour to apply our reasoning to facts, and then examine
consequences.
There are few countries, I believe, in Europe more abounding in grain
than England: I shall therefore keep that kingdom in my eye while I
examine this matter. Nothing is more common than to hear that an
abundant crop furnishes more than three years subsistence: nay, I have
found it advanced by an author of consideration, (Advantages and
disadvantages of France and Great Britain, &c. article Grain) that a
plentiful year produces five years nourishment for the inhabitants. If
this be a mistake, it may prove a very hurtful one in many respects. I
am, on the contrary, apt to believe, that no annual produce of grain
ever was so great in England as to supply its inhabitants fifteen
months, _in that abundance with which they feed themselves in a year of
plenty_. If this be the case, at what may we compute the surplus in
ordinary good years? I believe it will be thought a very good year which
produces _full_ subsistence for fifteen months; and crops which much
exceed this are, I believe, very rare. Here follow my reasons for
differing so widely from the gentleman whom I have cited. If I am in the
wrong, I shall have the most sensible pleasure in being set right; and
nothing will be so easy to any one who has access to be better informed
as to facts than I can pretend to be.
I consider all the yearly crop of grain in England as consumed at home,
except what is exported; for I cannot admit that any considerable
quantity is lost: that it may be abused, misapplied, drank when it
should be eat, I do not deny. These are questions which do not regard
the present inquiry. Whether therefore it be consumed in bread, beer,
spirits, or by animals, I reckon it consumed; and in a year when the
greatest consumption is made at home, this I call _the abundance with
which the inhabitants feed themselves in years of plenty_. Now I find in
the performance above cited, a state of exportations for five years,
from 1746 to 1750 inclusive, where the quantity exported amounts in all
to 5,289,847 quarters of all sorts of grain. This is not one year’s
provision, according to Sir William Petty’s calculation, of which we
have made mention above. The bounties upon corn (continues the author
abovementioned) have amounted in one year to 500,000_l._ sterling. He
does not mention the year, and I am little able to dispute that matter
with him. I suppose it to be true; and still farther, let it be
understood that the whole exportation was made out of the produce of one
crop. I do not find that this sum answers to the bounty upon 3,000,000
of quarters, which, according to Sir William Petty, make six months
provision. I calculate thus. The bounty upon wheat is 5_s._ a quarter,
that upon rye 3_s._ 6_d._ that upon barley 2_s._ 6_d._ these are the
species of grain commonly exported: cast the three premiums together,
and divide by three, the bounty will come to 3_s._ 8_d._ at a medium; at
which rate 500,000_l._ sterling will pay the bounty of 2,727,272
quarters of grain. An immense quantity to be exported! but a very
inconsiderable part of a crop supposed capable to maintain England for
five years. It may be answered, that the great abundance of a plentiful
year is considerably diminished when a scanty crop happens to preceed
it, or to follow upon it. In the first case, it is sooner begun upon; in
the last, it supplies the consumption in the year of scarcity,
considerably. This I allow to be just; but as it is not uncommon to see
a course of good years follow one another, the state of exportation at
such times must certainly be the best, nay, the only method of judging
of the real extent of superfluity.
On the other hand, I am apt to believe, that there never was a year of
such scarcity as that the lands of England did not produce greatly above
six months subsistence, _such as the people are used to take in years of
scarcity_. Were six months of the most slender subsistence to fail, I
imagine all Europe together might perhaps be at a loss to supply a
quantity sufficient to prevent the greatest desolation by famine.
As I have no access to look into records, I content myself with less
authentic documents. I find then by the London news-papers, that, from
the 9th of April to the 13th of August 1757, while great scarcity was
felt in England, there were declared in the port of London no more than
71,728 quarters of wheat, of which 15,529 were not then arrived. So that
the whole quantity there imported to relieve the scarcity, was 56,199
quarters. Not one month’s provision for the inhabitants of that city,
reckoning them at 800,000 souls! One who has access to look into the
registers of the trade in grain, might in a moment determine this
question.
Another reason which induces me to believe what the above arguments seem
to prove, I draw from what I see at present passing in Germany; I mean
the universal complaints of scarcity in those armies which are now
assembled, [1757] When we compare the numbers of an army, let it be of a
hundred thousand men, suppose the suite of it to be as many more, and
forty thousand horses, all strangers, (for the others I reckon nothing
extraordinary) what an inconsiderable number does this appear, in
proportion to the inhabitants of this vast country of Germany! Yet let
us observe the quantity of provisions of all sorts constantly coming
down the Rhine, the Moselle, and many other rivers, collected from
foreign provinces on all hands; the numbers of cattle coming from
Hungary; the loads of corn from Poland; and all this in a year which has
produced what at any other time would have been called an excellent
crop. After these foreign supplies, must not one be astonished to find
scarcity complained of in the provinces where the war is carried on, and
high prices every where else. From such circumstances I must conclude,
that people are generally very much deceived in their estimation of
plenty and scarcity, when they talk of two or three years subsistence
for a country being found upon their lands at once. I may indeed be
mistaken in my conclusions; but the more I have reflected upon this
subject, the more I find myself confirmed in them, even from the
familiar examples of the sudden rise of markets from very inconsiderable
monopolies, and of their sudden fall by inconsiderable quantities
imported. I could cite many examples of these vicissitudes, were it
necessary, to prove what every one must observe.
I come now to resolve a difficulty which naturally results from this
doctrine, and with which I shall close the chapter.
If it be true, that a crop in the most plentiful year is nearly consumed
by the inhabitants, what becomes of them in years of scarcity; for
nobody can deny, that there is a great difference between one crop and
another. To this I answer, first, That I believe there is also a very
great deceit, or common mistake, as to the difference between crops: a
good year for one soil, is a bad one for another. But I shall not
enlarge on this; because I have no sufficient proof of my opinion. The
principal reason upon which I found it, is, that it is far from being
true, that the same number of people consume always the same quantity of
food. In years of plenty every one is well fed; the price of the lowest
industry can procure subsistence sufficient to bear a division; food is
not so frugally managed; a quantity of animals are fatted for use; all
sorts of cattle are kept in good heart; and people drink more largely,
because all is cheap. A year of scarcity comes, the people are ill fed,
and when the lower classes come to divide with their children, the
portions are brought to be very small; there is great oeconomy upon
consumption, few animals are fatted for use, cattle look miserably, and
a poor man cannot indulge himself with a cup of generous ale. Add to all
these circumstances, that in England the produce of pasture is very
considerable, and it commonly happens, that a bad year for grain, which
proceeds from rains, is for the same reason a good year for pasture; and
in the estimation of a crop, every circumstance must be allowed to
enter.
From what has been said I must conclude in general, that the best corn
country in the world, provided slavery be not established, does not
produce wherewithal fully to maintain, as in years of plenty, one third
more than its own inhabitants; for if this should be the case, all the
policy of man would not be able to prevent the multiplication of them,
until they arose nearly up to the mean proportion of the produce in
ordinary years, and it is only what exceeds this standard, and proceeds
from unusual plenty, which can be exported. Were plentiful years more
common, mankind would be more numerous; were scarcity more frequent,
numbers would be less. Numbers therefore must ever be, in my humble
opinion, in the ratio of food, and multiplication will never stop until
the balance comes to be nearly even.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XVIII.
_Of the Causes and Consequences of a Country’s being fully peopled._
In the titles of my chapters, I rather seek to communicate a rough idea
of the subject than a correct one. In truth and in reason, there is no
such thing as a country actually peopled to the full, if by this term
numbers only are meant, without considering the proportion they bear to
the consumption they make of the productions of their country. I have in
a former chapter established a distinction between the physical and
moral impossibility of increasing numbers. As to the physical
impossibility, the case can hardly exist, because means of procuring
subsistence from other countries, when the soil refuses to give more,
seem, if not inexhaustible, at least very extensive. A country therefore
fully peopled, that is, in a physical impossibility of increasing their
numbers, is a chimerical and useless supposition. The subject here under
consideration is, the situation of a people, who find it their interest
to seek for subsistence from abroad. This may happen, and commonly does,
long before the country itself is fully improved: it decides nothing as
to the intrinsic fertility of the soil, and proves no more, than that
the industry of the free hands has made a quicker progress in
multiplying mouths, than that of the farmers in providing subsistence.
To illustrate this idea, let me propose the following question.
Is multiplication the efficient cause of agriculture, or is agriculture
that of multiplication?
I answer, that multiplication is the efficient cause of agriculture,
though I allow, that, in the infancy of society, the spontaneous fruits
of the earth, which are free to all, are the efficient cause of a
multiplication, which may rise to the exact proportion of them; as has
been said above. This must be explained.
I have already distinguished the fruits of agriculture from the earth’s
spontaneous production: I must farther take notice, that when I employ
the term agriculture in treating of modern policy, I always consider it
to be exercised as a trade, and producing a surplus, and not as the
direct means of subsisting, where all is consumed by the husbandman, as
has been fully explained above. We have said, that it is the surplus
produced from it, which proves a fund for multiplying inhabitants. Now
there must be a demand for this surplus. Every person who is hungry will
make a demand, but every such demand will not be answered, and will
consequently have no effect. The demander must have an equivalent to
give: it is this equivalent which is the spring of the whole machine;
for without _that_ the farmer will not produce any surplus, and
consequently he will dwindle down to the class of those who labour for
actual subsistence. The poor, who produce children, make an ineffectual
demand, and when they cannot increase the equivalent, they divide the
food they have with the new comers, and prove no encouragement to
agriculture. By dividing, the whole become ill fed, miserable, and thus
extinguish. Now because it is the _effectual_ demand, as I may call it,
which makes the husbandman labour for the sake of the equivalent, and
because this demand increases, by the multiplication of those who have
an equivalent to give, therefore I say that multiplication is the cause,
and agriculture the effect. On the other hand, I think the spontaneous
fruits of the earth, as in the supposition, may be considered as the
cause of a certain limited multiplication; because in that case there is
no equivalent demanded. The earth produces, whether her fruits be
consumed or not: mankind are fed upon these gratuitously, and without
labour, and the existence of the fruits is anterior to the production of
those who are to consume them. Those who are first fed, draw their
vigour from their food, and their multiplication from their vigour.
Those who are produced, live freely upon their parent earth, and
multiply until all the produce be consumed: then multiplication stops,
as we have said; _but establish agriculture_, and multiplication will go
on a-new. Consequently, my reader will say, agriculture is as much the
cause of this new multiplication, as the spontaneous fruits were of the
first. Here is a very natural conclusion, which seems directly to
contradict what we have been endeavouring to prove; but the knot is
easily untied. We have seen how the existence of agriculture must depend
upon the industry of man; that is, on the only means _of establishing
agriculture_: now, as this industry is chiefly promoted by the motive of
providing for our children, the procreation of them must be considered
as the first, or at least the most palpable political cause of setting
mankind to work, and therefore may be considered as anterior to
agriculture; whereas, on the other hand, the earth’s spontaneous
productions being in small quantity, and quite independent of man,
appear, as it were, to be furnished by nature, in the same way as a
small sum is given to a young man, in order to put him in a way of
industry, and of making his fortune. The small sum sets him a-going, but
it is his industry which makes the fortune. From this illustration it
appears, that if the demand for food can be more readily supplied from
abroad than from home, it will be the foreign subsistence, which will
preserve numbers, produced from _industry_, not from _domestic
agriculture_; and these numbers will, in their turn, produce an
advancement of it at home, by inspiring a desire in the husbandman to
acquire the equivalent which their countrymen give to strangers.
Such nations, whose statesmen have not the talent to engage the
husbandmen to wish for the equivalent, which the labour of their
fellow-citizens can produce; or, in other words, who cannot create
reciprocal wants and dependencies among their subjects, must stand in a
moral incapacity of augmenting in numbers. Of such states we have no
occasion to treat in this chapter, any more than of those who are
supposed to be in the physical incapacity of multiplying: our point of
view is, to examine the natural consequences resulting from a demand for
subsistence extending itself to foreign countries. This I take to be the
mother of industry at home, as well as of trade abroad; two objects
which come to be treated of in the second book.
A country may be fully peopled (in the sense we understand this term) in
several different ways. It may be fully stocked at one time with six
millions, and at another may maintain perhaps eight or even nine
millions with ease, without the soil’s being better cultivated or
improved. On the other hand, a country may maintain twenty millions with
ease, and by being improved as to the soil, become overstocked with
fifteen millions. These two assertions must be explained.
The more frugal a people are, and the more they feed upon the plentiful
productions of the earth, the more they may increase in numbers.
Were the people of England to come more into the use of living upon
bread, and give over consuming so much animal food, inhabitants would
certainly increase, and many rich grass fields would be thrown into
tillage. Were the French to give over eating so much bread, the Dutch so
much fish, the Flemish so much garden stuff, and the Germans so much
sourkraut, and all take to the English diet of pork, beef, and mutton,
their respective numbers would soon decay, let them improve their
grounds to the utmost. These are but reflections, by the by, which the
reader may enlarge upon at pleasure. The point in hand is, to know what
are the consequences of a country’s being so peopled, no matter from
what cause, that the soil, in its actual state of fertility, refuses to
supply a sufficient quantity of such food as the inhabitants incline to
live upon. These are different according to the diversity of spirit in
the people.
If they be of an indolent disposition, directed in their political
oeconomy by established habits and old prejudices, which prevent
innovations, although a change of circumstances may demand them, the
effect will be to put a stop to population; which cannot augment without
an increase of food on one hand, and of industry on the other, to make
the first circulate. These must go hand in hand: the precedence between
them is a matter of mere curiosity and speculation.
If, on the contrary, a spirit of industry has brought the country to a
certain degree of population, this spirit will not be stopt by the want
of food; it will be brought from foreign countries, and this new demand,
by diminishing among them the quantity usually produced for their own
subsistence, will prompt the industrious to improve their lands, in
order to supply the new demand without any hurt to themselves. Thus
trade has an evident tendency towards the improvement of the world in
general, by rendering the inhabitants of one country industrious, in
order to supply the wants of another, without any prejudice to
themselves. Let us make a step further.
The country fully stocked can offer in exchange for this food, nothing
but the superfluity of the industry of the free hands, for that of the
farmers is supposed to be consumed by the society; except indeed some
species of nourishment or productions, which, being esteemed at a higher
value in other countries than in those which produce them, bring a more
considerable return than the value of what is exported, as when raw silk
and delicate wines, &c. are given in exchange for grain and other
provisions.
The superfluity of industry must, therefore, form the principal part of
exportation, and if the nation fully stocked be surrounded by others
which abound in grain and articles of subsistence, where the inhabitants
have a taste for elegance, and are eager of acquiring the manufactures
and improvements of their industrious neighbours; it is certain, that a
trade with such nations will very considerably increase the inhabitants
of the other, though fully stocked, relatively to the production of
their own soil; and the additional numbers will only increase that of
manufacturers, not of husbandmen. This is the case with Holland, and
with many large trading cities which are free and have but a small
territory.
If, on the contrary, the nation fully stocked be in the neighbourhood of
others who take the same spirit as itself, this supply of food will
become in time more difficult to be had, in proportion as their
neighbours come to supply their own wants. They must therefore seek for
it at a greater distance, and as soon as the expence of procuring it
comes to exceed the value of the labour of the free hands employed in
producing the equivalent, their work will cease to be exported, and the
number of inhabitants will be diminished to the proportion of the
remaining food.
I do not say that trade will cease on this account; by no means. Trade
may still go on, and even be more considerable than before; but it will
be a trade which never can increase inhabitants, because for this
purpose there must be subsistence. It may have however numberless and
great advantages: it may greatly advance the wealth of the state, and
this will purchase even power and strength. A trading nation may live in
profound peace at home, and send war and confusion among her enemies,
without even employing her own subjects. Thus trade without increasing
the inhabitants of a country can greatly add to its force, by arming
those hands which she has not fed, and employing them for her service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XIX.
_Is the Introduction of Machines into Manufactures prejudicial to the
Interest of a State, or hurtful to Population?_
This I find has been made a question in modern times. The antients held
in great veneration the inventors of the saw, of the lathe, of the
wimble, of the potters wheel; but some moderns find an abuse in bringing
mechanism to perfection: (see _Les Interets de la France mal entendus_,
p. 272. 313.) the great Montesquieu finds fault with water mills, though
I do not find that he has made any objection against the use of the
plow.
Did people understand one another, it would be impossible that such
points could suffer a dispute among men of sense; but the circumstances
referred to, or presupposed, which authors almost always keep in their
eye, though they seldom express them, render the most evident truths
susceptible of opposition.
It is hardly possible suddenly to introduce the smallest innovation into
the political oeconomy of a state, let it be ever so reasonable, nay
ever so profitable, without incurring some inconveniencies. A room
cannot be swept without raising dust, one cannot walk abroad without
dirtying one’s shoes; neither can a machine, which abridges the labour
of men, be introduced _all at once_ into an extensive manufacture,
without throwing many people into idleness.
In treating every question of political oeconomy, I constantly suppose a
statesman at the head of government, systematically conducting every
part of it, so as to prevent the vicissitudes of manners, and
innovations, from hurting any interest within the commonwealth, by their
natural and immediate effects or consequences. When a house within a
city becomes crazy, it is taken down; this I call systematical ruin:
were it allowed to fall, the consequences might be fatal in many
respects. In like manner, if a number of machines are all at once
introduced into the manufactures of an industrious nation, (in
consequence of that freedom which must necessarily be indulged to all
sorts of improvement, and without which a state cannot thrive) it
becomes the business of the statesman to interest himself so far in the
consequences, as to provide a remedy for the inconveniencies resulting
from the sudden alteration. It is farther his duty to make every
exercise even of liberty and refinement an object of government and
administration; not so as to discourage or to check them, but to prevent
the revolution from affecting the interests of the different classes of
the people, whose welfare he is particularly bound to take care of.
The introduction of machines can, I think, in no other way prove hurtful
by making people idle, than by the suddenness of it: and I have
frequently observed, that all sudden revolutions, let them be ever so
advantageous, must be accompanied with inconveniencies. A safe,
honourable, and lasting peace, after a long, dangerous, and expensive
war, forces a number of hands to be idle, and deprives them of bread.
Peace then may be considered as a machine for defending a nation, at the
political loss of making an army idle; yet no body, I believe, will
alledge that in order to give bread to soldiers, sutlers, and
undertakers, the war should be continued. But here I must observe, that
it seems to be a palpable defect in policy, if a statesman shall neglect
to find out a proper expedient (at whatever first expence it may be
procured) for giving bread to those who, at the risk of their lives,
have gone through so many fatigues for the service of their country.
This expence should be charged to the account of the war, and a state
ought to consider, that as their safety required that numbers should be
taken out of the way of securing to themselves a lasting fund of
subsistence, which would have rendered them independent of every body,
(supposing that to have been the case) she becomes bound by the contract
of society, which ties all together, to find them employment. Let me
seek for another illustration concerning this matter.
I want to make a rampart cross a river, in order to establish a bridge,
a mill, a sluice, &c. For this purpose, I must turn off the water, that
is, stop the river; would it be a good objection against my improvement
to say, that the water would overflow the neighbouring lands, as if I
could be supposed so improvident as not to have prepared a new channel
for it? Machines stop the river; it is the business of the state to make
the new channel, as it is the public which is to reap the benefit of the
sluice: I imagine what I have said will naturally suggest an answer to
all possible objections against the introduction of machines; as for the
advantages of them, they are so palpable that I need not insist upon
them. There is however one case in which I think they may be disapproved
of; but it seems a chimerical supposition, and is brought in here for no
other purpose than to point out and illustrate the principle which,
influences this branch of our subject.
If you can imagine a country peopled to the utmost extent of the
fertility of the soil, and absolutely cut off from any communication
with other nations; all the inhabitants fully employed in supplying the
wants of one another, the circulation of money going forward regularly,
proportionally, and uniformly through every vein, as I may call it, of
the political body; no hidden or extraordinary demand at any time for
any branch of industry; no redundancy of any employment; no possibility
of increasing either circulation, industry, or consumption. In such a
situation as that I should disapprove of the introduction of machines,
as I disapprove of taking physic in an established state of perfect
health. I disapprove of a machine only because it is an innovation in a
state absolutely perfect in these branches of its political oeconomy;
and where there is perfection there can be no improvement. I farther
disapprove of it because it might force a man to be idle, who would be
found thereby in a physical impossibility of getting his bread, in any
other way than that in which he is supposed to be actually employed.
The present situation of every country in Europe, is so infinitely
distant from this degree of perfection, that I must consider the
introduction of machines, and of every method of augmenting the produce
or facilitating the labour and ingenuity of man, as of the greatest
utility. Why do people wish to augment population, but in order to
compass these ends? Wherein does the effect of a machine differ from
that of new inhabitants?
As agriculture, exercised as a trade, purges the land of idle mouths,
and pushes them to a new industry which the state may turn to her own
advantage; so does a machine introduced into a manufacture, purge off
hands which then become superfluous _in that branch_, and which may
quickly be employed in another.
If therefore the machine proves hurtful, it can only be because it
presents the state with an additional number of hands bred to labour;
consequently, if these are afterwards found without bread, it must
proceed from a want of attention in the statesman: for an industrious
man made idle, may constantly be employed to advantage, and with profit
to him who employs him. What could an act of naturalization do more,
than furnish industrious hands forced to be idle, and demanding
employment? Machines therefore I consider as a method of augmenting
(virtually) the number of the industrious, without the expence of
feeding an additional number: this by no means obstructs natural and
useful population, for the most obvious reasons.
We have shewn how population must go on, in proportion to subsistence,
and in proportion to industry: now the machine eats nothing, so does not
diminish subsistence, and industry (in our age at least) is in no danger
of being overstocked in any well governed state; for let all the world
copy your improvements, they still will be the scholars. And if, on the
contrary, in the introduction of machines you are found to be the
scholars of other nations, in that case you are brought to the dilemma
of accepting the invention with all its inconveniencies, or of
renouncing every foreign communication.
In speculations of this kind, one ought not, I think, to conclude, that
experience _must_ of necessity prove what we imagine our reasoning has
pointed out.
The consequences of innovations in political oeconomy, admit of an
infinite variety, because of the infinite variety of circumstances which
attend them: no reasoning, therefore, however refined, can point out a
priori, what upon such occasions must indispensably follow. The
experiment must be made, circumstances must be allowed to operate;
inconveniencies must be prevented or rectified as far as possible; and
when these prove too many, or too great to be removed, the most
rational, the best concerted scheme in theory must be laid aside, until
preparatory steps be taken for rendring it practicable.
Upon the whole, daily experience shews the advantage and improvement
acquired by the introduction of machines. Let the inconveniencies
complained of be ever so sensibly felt, let a statesman be ever so
careless in relieving those who are forced to be idle, all these
inconveniencies are only temporary; the advantage is permanent, and the
necessity of introducing every method of abridging labour and expence,
in order to supply the wants of luxurious mankind, is absolutely
indispensable, according to modern policy, according to experience, and
according to reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XX.
_Miscellaneous Observations upon Agriculture and Population._
I have hitherto considered the object of agriculture, as no more than
the raising of grain; the food of mankind has been estimated by the
quantity they consume of that production; and husbandmen have been
supposed to have their residence in the country. As my subject has but
an indirect connection with the science of agriculture, I have
simplified many things complex in themselves, the better to adapt them
to the principal object of my inquiry, and the better to keep my
attention fixed upon one idea at a time. I am now going to return to
some parts of my subject, which I think I have treated too
superficially; and to examine, as I go along, some miscellaneous
questions which will naturally arise from what is to be said.
[Sidenote: QUEST. I.]
Almost every one who has writ upon population, and upon agriculture,
considered as an essential concomitant of it, has recommended the equal
distribution of the property of lands as useful to both: a few
reflections upon this question, after what has been thrown out in the
course of the foregoing chapters, may not be improper; more in order to
examine and apply the principles laid down, than with a view to combat
the opinion of others.
I have already, upon several occasions, taken notice of the great
difference between the political oeconomy of the antients, and that of
modern times; for this reason, among others, that I perceive the
sentiments of the antients, which were founded upon reason and common
sense, relative to their situation, have been adopted by some moderns,
who have not perhaps sufficiently attended to the change of our manners,
and to the effects which this change must operate upon every thing
relative to our oeconomy. The antients recommended strongly an equal
distribution of lands as the best security for liberty, and the best
method, not only to preserve an equality among the citizens, but also to
increase their number.
In those days, the citizens did not compose one half of the state
relatively to numbers; and there was almost no such thing as an
established monied interest, which can no where be founded but upon
trade, and an extensive industry. In those days there was no solid
income but in land: and that being equally divided among the citizens,
was favourable to their multiplication and produced equality. But in our
days, riches do not consist in lands only; nay we sometimes find the
most considerable proprietor of these in very indifferent circumstances;
loaded with debts, and depending upon the indulgence of men who have not
an acre, and who are their creditors. Let us therefore divide our lands
as we please, we shall never produce equality by it. This is an
essential difference between us and the antients, with respect to one
point. Now as to the other, population.
The equal division of lands, no doubt, greatly tends to increase the
numbers of one class of inhabitants, to wit, the landlords. In antient
times, as has been observed, the chief attention was to increase the
citizens, that is the higher classes of the state; and the equal
division of property so effectually produced this effect, that the Greek
states were obliged to allow the exposition of children; and Aristotle
looked upon it as a thing indispensably necessary, as M. de Montesquieu
has very judiciously observed. The multiplication of the lowest classes,
that is of the slaves, never entered into the consideration of the
public, but remained purely a matter of private concern; and we find it
was a question with some, whether or not it was worth while to breed
from them at all. But in our days the principal object is to support the
lower classes from their own multiplication, and for this purpose, an
unequal division of property seems to me the more favourable scheme;
because the wealth of the rich falls naturally into the pockets of the
industrious poor; whereas the produce of a very middling fortune, does
no more than feed the children of the proprietor, who in course become
very commonly and very naturally an useless burthen upon the land. Let
me apply this to an example. Do we not familiarly observe, that the
consolidation of small estates, and the diminution of gentlemens
families of middling fortunes, do little harm to a modern state. There
are always abundance of this class of inhabitants to be found whenever
there is occasion for them. When a great man buys up the lands of the
neighbouring gentry, or small proprietors, all the complaints which are
heard, turn upon the distress which thence result to the lower classes,
from the loss of their masters and protectors; but never one word is
heard of that made by the state, from the extinction of the former
proprietor’s family. This abundantly shews that the object of modern
attention is the multiplication of the lower classes, consequently it
must be an inconsistency to adopt the practice of the antients, when our
oeconomy is entirely opposite to theirs.
[Sidenote: QUEST. II.]
Let this suffice to point out how far the difference of our manners
should influence the division of our lands. I shall now examine a
question relative to the science of agriculture, not considered as a
method of improving the soil, (this will come in more naturally
afterwards) but of making it produce to the best advantage, supposing it
to be already improved.
In treating of the productions of the earth, in consequence of
agriculture, I have all along distinguished them from those which
spontaneously proceed from the force of nature: these are the immediate
gift of God, those are the return of the labour of his creatures. Every
one knows that the labour of mankind is not in proportion to their
numbers, but to their industry. The produce therefore of agriculture
must be estimated, not according to the quantity of fruits only, but
also according to the labour employed to produce them. These things
premised, the question here proposed to be examined arises, viz. Which
species of agriculture is the most advantageous to a modern society,
that which produces the greatest quantity of fruits _absolutely_ taken,
or that which produces the greatest quantity _relatively_ taken, I mean
to the labour employed?
This question might easily be resolved, in general, by the application
of principles already deduced; although it cannot admit of a direct
answer, in the manner I have put it. One, therefore, may say
indeterminately, that species is the best which produces a surplus the
best proportioned to the industry, and to the demands of all the free
hands of the state. But as this solution would not lead me to the object
I have in view, I have thrown in an alternative in order to gain
attention to the principles which I am going to examine, and which
influence and determine the establishment of the one or the other
species of agriculture.
The principal difficulty I find in the examination of this question, is
to distinguish the effects of agriculture from those of the spontaneous
production of the earth. The returns from pasture, for example,
relatively taken, are, as we have observed, both from reason and from
experience, far greater than those of corn fields, (vid. supra, chap.
8.) though I little doubt but that, absolutely taken, the case is quite
otherwise; that is to say, that an acre of the finest corn land will
produce more nourishment for man, than an equal portion of the finest
pasture: but here we are following the proportion of space and produce,
not of labour; for if the produce of both acres be considered relatively
to the _labour_ necessary for the cultivation, as well as to the extent;
the produce of pasture will be found far greater: this however I ascribe
to the spontaneous operation of nature, and not to the superior utility
of this kind of agriculture.
Since therefore it is impossible, rightly to separate the effects of
nature from those of art and industry, in this species of improvement,
let us confine our speculations to those only which have for their
object the turning up the surface, and the sowing or cultivating annual
vegetables. For the better conveying our ideas, let us take an example,
and reason from a supposition.
Let me suppose an island of a small extent and fruitful soil,
sufficiently improved, and cultivated after the manner of the best lands
of England, in the ordinary method of farming.
In that case we may infer, from what was laid down in the 8th chapter,
that the number of people employed about farming may be nearly about one
half of the whole society. Let the whole inhabitants of the island be
called 1000, that is 500 farmers, and as many free hands. The 500
farmers must then feed 1000; the 500 free hands must provide for all the
other wants of 1000. By this supposition, and allowing that there is an
equal degree of industry in these two classes, the providing of food
will appear to be an occupation just equal to that of providing for all
other wants. From this let me draw a few consequences, by the by, before
I proceed.
Experience shews that in all countries there are found many who are here
understood to be included in the class of free hands, who consumed
infinitely more of other things than of food; consequently we must
conclude, that as the wants of some do far exceed the proportion of
their food, so in order to bring the balance even, the wants of others
must fall far below it. That this is the case, I believe, will be found
by experience. Let me follow this thought a little farther.
In proportion as a greater number than one half of the people becomes
employed in agriculture, must it not follow, that all other work must
come to bear a smaller proportion than formerly to the food consumed;
consequently the manner of living must become more simple. Now we have
shewn that what we call wants, in contradistinction to food, can only be
supplied by the free hands, and that these again can only be fed from
the surplus of the farmers; consequently the fewer wants, and the fewer
free hands, the less surplus, which of course infers an agriculture less
productive, relatively to the number of farmers. Were, therefore, a
whole society employed in agriculture, carried on as a direct method of
subsisting, there would be no surplus, consequently no free hands;
consequently no work for supplying any want but food. This may be
thought an impossible supposition. If you suppose agriculture exercised
as a trade, I allow it to be so, but not if it be carried on as a method
of subsisting only; and if you throw away the idea of labour altogether,
and suppose mankind in its infancy, that is in paradise, living upon the
spontaneous fruits of the earth, and quite naked, you will find the case
not only supposable, but exactly so. It is exactly so among the cattle:
every one of them may be considered in a parallel situation with a
husbandman who works for his own nourishment. They feed upon the
spontaneous fruits of the earth, and have no surplus; and having no
other want, they are freed from every other care. Let me return now to
the island.
The 500 farmers feed 1000; and we suppose the lands laboured as in a
good English farm. One of the society proposes to augment the number of
inhabitants by introducing a more operose species of agriculture, the
produce of which may be _absolutely_ greater, though relatively less.
The first question the statesman would naturally put to this reformer
would be, What is your view in increasing the number of our inhabitants,
is it to defend us against our enemies, is it to supply the wants of
strangers, and thereby to enrich ourselves, is it to supply our own
_wants_ with more abundance, or is it to provide us more abundantly with
_food_? I can hardly find out any other rational view in wishing for an
additional number of people in any country whatsoever. Let it be
answered, that all these ends may be thereby obtained: and now let us
examine how far this reformation upon agriculture will have the effect
of increasing inhabitants, how far such increase will procure the ends
proposed, and how far the execution of such a plan is a practicable
scheme to an industrious people.
If the inhabitants be not sufficiently fed, which is the only thing that
can prevent their multiplication, it must proceed from one of two
causes. Either _first_, that those do procreate who cannot produce an
equivalent for the food of their children; or _secondly_, that industry
making a quicker progress than agriculture, the industrious come too
strongly in competition with one another, for the surplus of food to be
found; which has the effect of raising the prices of it, and reducing
the portions too low to suffer a division; and thereby of preventing
marriage and multiplication in the lower classes of the free hands.
In the first case, it is to no purpose to increase the produce of
agriculture, by rendering it more expensive; for those who have no
equivalent to give when food is cheap, will still be in greater
necessity when it rises in the price. In the second case, it is to no
purpose to diminish the surplus of the farmers, because the supposition
proves that the balance is already too heavy upon the side of the free
hands, that is, that the surplus of the farmers is already become
insufficient fully to feed them.
Two remedies may be proposed for this inconveniency, the one tending to
population, the other to depopulation; and as the end to be compassed is
to set the balance even between husbandmen and free hands, I shall
explain both, and point out _how far_ from principles it appears, that
in either way the end may be attained.
That tending to increase population is the remedy proposed, and, no
doubt, was it possible to introduce a new system of agriculture of a
larger absolute production, although the relative production should be
less, the inhabitants of the state becoming thereby better fed, though
at a greater cost, would infallibly multiply. Let me therefore examine
this first part before I say any thing of the other; and for the greater
distinctness I shall return to my example, and examine both the
consequences and the possibility of putting such a plan in execution.
Let me suppose, that by using the spade and rake, instead of the plow
and harrow, the lands of our island might be brought to produce with
more abundance; this is a method of increasing the expence of
agriculture, which would require an additional number of husbandmen.
Now, by the supposition, 500 farmers fed, though scantily, the whole of
the inhabitants, that is 1000 persons. If therefore 100 of the free
hands can be engaged to become farmers, the end may be attained: more
nourishment will be produced; the people will be better fed; they will
multiply; that is, their number will rise above 1000. Let us next
endeavour to form a judgment of this increase, and of the consequence of
the revolution.
The society will now be composed of 600 farmers and 400 free hands. The
600 will certainly produce more fruits than formerly; but as their
labour is relatively less productive by the supposition, it will be
impossible for them to furnish surplus equal to their own consumption;
consequently, the free hands never will be able to rise to a number
equal to theirs; that is, the society will never get up to 1200. But we
supposed, that the other wants of the society required the industry of
one half of the inhabitants to supply them; that is, of all the 500 free
hands; and, as the number of these has been already reduced, and can
never more rise to that proportion, as has been said, must not either
the people voluntarily adopt a more simple way of living; or must not
the demand for work rise very considerably? Let me consider the
consequences in both cases. In the first, you perceive, that if the
inhabitants themselves are obliged to simplify their way of living, for
want of hands to supply what they formerly consumed, three of the four
objects proposed by the reformation become impossible to be attained; to
wit, the defending themselves against their enemies, the supplying the
wants of strangers, and the supplying their own with more abundance. And
with regard to the fourth, the being better fed, that must cease to be
the case, the moment the end is obtained; that is, the moment the
inhabitants are multiplied up to the proportion of additional food.
Consequently, by simplifying their way of life, and allowing farming to
stand upon the new footing, they compass not any one of the ends they
proposed.
Next, if we suppose, that the inhabitants do not incline to simplify
their way of life, but that the wealthy among them insist upon
purchasing all the instruments of luxury which they formerly were used
to enjoy, must not demand for work greatly rise, and must not, of
consequence, an additional encouragement be given to that species of
labour which had been diminished, in taking 100 persons from industry,
to throw them into the class of farmers? Will not this make them quickly
desert their spade, and the rather, as they have taken to an employment
less lucrative than that of farming, according to the former systems?
So much for the consequences which would follow, in case the plan
proposed was found practicable; that is, supposing it to be a thing
possible to transport into agriculture a part of an industrious society,
already otherwise employed, and to change _all at once_ the relative
proportion between those who supply food, and those who purchase it with
their industry. We have begun, by taking that first step for granted;
and now I am to shew what obstacles will be found in the execution.
We have said, that it is the multiplicity and complexity of wants which
give an encouragement to agriculture, and not agriculture, or an
abundance of food, which inspires mankind with a disposition to labour.
Now, if this principle be true, the supposition we have proceeded upon
is absurd. I am afraid, both reason and experience will abundantly prove
that it is so.
The natural and necessary effect of industry, in trades and
manufactures, is to promote the increase of relative husbandry; which,
by augmenting the surplus, tends of course to increase the proportion of
the free hands relatively to the farmers. A river may as easily ascend
to its source, as a people voluntarily adopt a more operose agriculture
than that already established, supposing the lands to be fully improved,
the spirit of industry to prevail on one hand, and the farmers to have
profit only in view on the other.
What farmer could sell the surplus of an expensive agriculture in
competition with another who exercised a species relatively more
productive?
When lands are improved, the simplification of agriculture is a
necessary concomitant of industry, because diminishing expence is the
only method of gaining a preference at market.
[Sidenote: QUEST. III.]
Whether industry has done hurt to population, by augmenting the
relative, and diminishing the absolute produce of agriculture; or
whether it has done good to it, by encouraging the science in general,
and extending the exercise of it over the face of the earth, is a matter
of fact which I shall leave to others, better informed than I am, to
determine. For my own part, I believe that thousands of examples may be
found of the one and the other. I know corn fields, where villages
formerly stood, the inhabitants of which fed themselves with the pure
produce of absolute agriculture; that is, with a bit of garden ground,
and the milk of a cow: there surely is depopulation: but, at a small
distance from the place where those villages stood, I see corn fields,
where nothing but heath was to be met with; this marks population. I
seek no more than to explain from facts the principles I am endeavouring
to discover, and shall leave general conclusions to others, as I have
already said.
There is a maxim in law, which may be extended almost to every thing in
this world, _unum quodque eodem modo solvitur quo colligatum est_.
Industry forms this species of absolute agriculture; industry destroys
it. A military force raised the Roman greatness; a military force
destroyed it. A spirit of liberty may form a noble constitution, and a
spirit of liberty may break the same to pieces. The States of Denmark
restrained the royal power and established a free government; the same
States rendered that very power unlimited, and established there the
purest monarchy in Christendom. But these reflections are foreign to our
subject: _Ne sutor ultra crepidam_. I return.
When industry is set on foot, it gives encouragement to agriculture
exercised as a trade: and by the allurements of ease, which a large
surplus procures to the farmers, it does hurt to that species which is
exercised as a method of subsistence. Lands become more generally and
less thoroughly laboured. In some countries tillage is set on foot and
encouraged; this is an operose agriculture. While industry goes forward,
and while a people can remain satisfied with a nourishment consisting
chiefly of bread, this system of agriculture will subsist, and will
carry numbers very high. If wealth increases, and if those who have it
begin to demand a much greater proportion of work than formerly, while
they consume no more food, then I believe numbers may diminish from the
principles I am now going in quest of.
I return to the council of the island where the proposition laid down
upon the carpet is, _The scanty subsistence of the inhabitants requires
redress_.
A Machiavelian stands up (of such there are some in every country) and
proposes, in place of multiplying the inhabitants, by rendering
agriculture more operose, to diminish their number, by throwing a
quantity of corn fields into grass. What is the intention of
agriculture, says he, but to nourish a state? By our operose method of
plowing and sowing, one half of the whole produce is consumed by those
who raise it; whereas by having a great part of our island in pasture,
one half of the husbandmen may be saved. Pray what do you propose to do
with those whom you intend to make idle? replies a citizen. Let them
betake themselves to industry. But industry is sufficiently, nay more
than sufficiently stocked already. If, says Machiavel, the supernumerary
husbandmen be thrown out of a way of living, they may go where they
please; we have no occasion for them, nor for any one who lives only to
feed himself. But you diminish the number of your people, replies the
citizen, and consequently your strength; and if afterwards you come to
be attacked by your enemies, you will wish to have those back again for
your defence, whom in your security you despised. To this the other
makes answer: there you trust to the Egyptian reed. If they be necessary
for feeding us at present, how shall we be able to live while we employ
them as soldiers? We may live without many things, but not without the
labour of our husbandmen. Whether we have our grounds in tillage or in
pasture, if that class be rightly proportioned to the labour required,
we never can take any from it. In those countries where we see princes
have recourse to the land to recruit their armies, we may safely
conclude, that there the land is overstocked; and that industry has not
as yet been able to purge off all the superfluous mouths: but with us
the case is different, where agriculture is justly proportioned to the
number of husbandmen. If I propose a reform, it is only to augment the
surplus, upon which all the state, except the husbandmen, are fed; if
the surplus after the reform is greater than at present, the plan is
good, although 250 of our farmers should thereby be forced to starve for
hunger.
Though no man is, I believe, capable to reason in so inhuman a style,
and though the revolution here proposed be an impossible supposition, if
meant to be executed all at once, the same effects however must be
produced, in every country where we see corn fields by degrees turned
into pasture; only the change is gradual, industry is not overstocked
any where, and subsistence may be drawn from other countries, where the
operose species of agriculture can be carried on with profit.
Familiar experience proves the truth of this. I have a corn farm, where
I maintain ten horses and four servants for the cultivation alone: at
the end of the year I find my surplus equal to 40_l._ sterling. If, by
throwing my grounds into grass, I can dismiss three servants and eight
horses, and at the end of the year raise my surplus to 50_l._ sterling,
who doubts of my doing it? Is not this following the doctrine above laid
down? But there is nothing odious in this; because I do not see these
three servants die for hunger, nor is it a consequence they should, as
states are formed. They turn themselves to industry, and food comes from
abroad, in proportion as the country itself produces a less quantity.
Fact and experience prove this assertion, and I cite Holland as an
example, where every branch of operose agriculture is exploded, except
for such productions as cannot be brought from other countries. I
introduced the rough Machiavelian only to set principles in a strong
light, and particularly that concerning the recruiting of armies from
the land, which I take to be both a true one, and one necessary to be
attended to, to wit, that those who must labour for the subsistence of
the society, can be of little use for the defence of a state, in case of
any emergency. Princes have found out the truth of this, and in
proportion as industry has extended itself, regular armies have been
found necessary to be kept up in times of peace, in order to be had in
times of war. A militia composed of people truly industrious, I take to
be far better in speculation than in practice. How would a militia do in
Holland? how admirable was it not formerly in Scotland, Poland, and
Catalonia? And how admirably does it still succeed in the armies of the
house of Austria? I may however be mistaken; for a military and an
industrious spirit may be found compatible with one another in some
particular nations: time perhaps will clear up this matter. Thus much
with regard to a militia. Now as to recruiting a regular army.
The more they are recruited from the land, the less they desert. The
army of the Russians, for example, now assembled (1758) hardly knows
desertion, those of the house of Austria, taken from certain provinces
where there is almost no industry, are in the same case, also the
militia of France which I consider as regular troops. On the other hand,
those armies which are raised in the countries where industry has taken
root are chiefly composed of loose fellows, the excrements of populous
cities, the sons of vice and idleness, who have neither domicil nor
attachment. These are soldiers truly by trade, and make a trade of it;
how many thousands of such are now to be found? they come to market
every season, and the best bidder has them while he can hold them. Some
princes make a point not to receive their own deserters back, but accept
of those who have committed the same infidelity to others; while others
content themselves with punishing those who fail in their attempt to
desert, but receive them back when they return of their own accord,
after having accomplished their desertion. All is now become commerce,
and seems to be regulated by the principles of it. I return to our
agriculture.
Does not the exposition we have now given of these principles tend to
cast a light upon the first question dismissed in this chapter, to wit,
the effects of an equal and an unequal distribution of the property of
lands?
When these are once well cultivated and improved, it is of no
consequence to whom the property belongs; for by the property of such
lands I only can mean the surplus, as we have abundantly explained
elsewhere. Let therefore the property of all the lands of a kingdom,
fully improved, belong to the state, or to any number of individuals,
however few, there is no question of improvement; no difference as to
agriculture, no difference as to population, according to modern policy.
So long as the whole is well cultivated and made to produce, by a set of
men I call farmers, the end is fully obtained; and according to the
nature of the agriculture, which many different circumstances of taste
and manner of living has introduced, larger or smaller portions of land
must be allotted to each of them.
If you suppose a country not as yet improved, as many are, then, the
case becomes quite different, and small possessions are necessary, both
for multiplying the inhabitants and for improving the soil. In this
supposition the most operose agriculture may be carried on in
competition with the most lucrative; because when there is a question of
improvement, there is frequently a considerable outgoing instead of any
surplus after paying the labour.
Agriculture for improvement can be carried on by none but those who have
wealth and superfluity, and is prosecuted with a view to future, not to
present advantage: of this we shall treat in another place. For I
consider it as a quite different operation, influenced by different
principles, and no ways to be confounded with the present subject of
inquiry. But I have insensibly been wandering through an extensive
subject, and it is now time to return.
I have said above that a river might as easily ascend to its source, as
an industrious people voluntarily adopt a more operose system of
agriculture than that already established, while the spirit of industry
prevails on one hand, and while farmers have profit only in view on the
other. In consequence of this position, I have treated the plan proposed
for augmenting the inhabitants of the island, by the introduction of a
more operose agriculture as absurd, and so it certainly is: but let me
throw in a circumstance which affects the spirit of that people, and the
plan becomes plausible and easy.
Let a part of the wealthy proprietors of the lands take a taste for
agriculture. Let a Tull, a Du Hamel turn agriculture into an object of
luxury, of amusement. Let this science be turned into a Missisippi, or
South Sea scheme. Let the rich be made to believe that treasures are to
be found at a small expence, laid at first out upon farming, and you
will soon see the most operose species of the science go forward, and
the produce of it come to market and be sold, in spite of all
competition. My Lady Duchess’s knotting may be sold at so much a pound,
as well as that performed by a girl who does not spend six pence a day;
but if the one and the other be considered relatively to the expence of
the manufacturer, every knot of my Lady’s will be found to have cost as
much as a pound of the other. The Duchess’s pound, however, increases
the quantity of knots; and so does my Lord’s farm the mass of
subsistence for the whole society. The nation also gains by his
extravagance having taken a turn, which may produce the permanent good
effect of improving a part of the country, though at an expence
infinitely beyond the value of it. I must now again touch upon another
part of my subject, which I think has been treated too superficially.
In a former chapter I have shewn how industry has the natural effect of
collecting into towns and cities the free hands of a state, leaving the
farmers in their farms and villages. This distribution served the
purpose of explaining certain principles; but when examined relatively
to other circumstances which at that time I had not in my eye, it will
be found by far too general. Let me therefore add some farther
observations upon that matter.
The extensive agriculture of plowing and sowing, is the proper
employment of the country, and is the foundation of population in every
nation fed upon its own produce. Cities are commonly surrounded by
kitchen gardens, and rich grass fields; these are the proper objects of
agriculture for those who live in suburbs, or who are shut up within the
walls of small towns. The gardens produce various kinds of nourishment,
which cannot easily be brought from a distance, in that fresh and
luxuriant state which pleases the eye, and conduces to health. They
offer a continual occupation to man, and very little for cattle,
therefore are properly situated in the proximity of towns and cities.
The grass fields again are commonly either grazed by cows, for the
production of milk, butter, cream, &c. which suffer by long carriage; or
kept in pasture for preserving fatted animals in good order until the
markets demand them; or they are cut in grass for the cattle of the
city. They may also be turned into hay with profit; because the carriage
of a bulky commodity from a great distance is sometimes too expensive.
Thus we commonly find agriculture disposed in the following manner. In
the center stands the city surrounded by kitchen gardens; beyond these
lies a belt of fine luxuriant pasture or hay fields; stretch beyond this
and you find the beginning of what I call operose farming, plowing and
sowing; beyond this lie grazing farms for the fattening of cattle; and
last of all come the mountainous and large extents of unimproved or ill
improved grounds, where animals are bred. This seems the natural
distribution, and such I have found it almost every where established,
when particular circumstances do not invert the order.
The poorness of the soil near Paris, for example, presents you with
fields of rye corn at the very gates, and with the most extensive
kitchen gardens and orchards, even for cherries and peaches, at a
considerable distance from town. Other cities I have found, and I can
cite the example of that which I at present inhabit, Padoua, where no
kitchen garden is to be found near it, but every spot is covered with
the richest grain; two thirds with wheat, and the remaining third with
Indian corn. The reason of this is palpable. The town is of a vast
extent, in proportion to the inhabitants; the gardens are all within the
walls, and the dung of the city enables the soil to produce constantly.
Hay is brought from a greater distance, because the expence of
distributing the dung over a distant field, would be greater than that
of transporting the hay by water-carriage. The farm houses here appear
no larger than huts, as they really are, built by the farmers, because
the space to be laboured is very small, in proportion to the produce;
hence it is, that a farmer here pays the value of the full half of the
crop to the landlord, and out of the remaining half, not only sows the
ground and buys the dung, but furnishes the cattle and labouring
instruments, nay even rebuilds his house, when occasion requires.
When first I examined these fertile plains, I began to lament the
prodigal consumption of such valuable lands, in a multitude of very
broad high-ways, issuing to all quarters; many of which I thought might
be saved, in consideration of the vast advantage accruing upon such
oeconomy: but upon farther reflection I perceived, that the loss was
inconsiderable; for the fertility of the soil proceeding chiefly from
the manure laid upon it, the loss sustained from the roads ought to be
computed at no more than the value of the land when uncultivated. The
case would be very different, were roads now to be changed, or new ones
carried through the corn fields; the loss then would be considerable,
though even that would be temporary, and only affect particular persons:
for the same dung, which now supports these lands in their fertility,
would quickly fertilize others in their places and in a few years
matters would stand as at present.
These last reflections lead me naturally to examine a question which has
been treated by a very polite French writer, the author of _l’Ami de
l’homme_, and which comes in here naturally enough, before I put an end
to this first book. Here it is.
[Sidenote: QUEST. IV.]
Does an unnecessary consumption of the earth’s productions, either in
food, cloathing, or other wants; and a prodigal employment of fine rich
fields, in gardens, avenues, great roads, and other uses which give
small returns, _hurt population_, by rendering food and necessaries less
abundant, in a kingdom such as France, in its present situation?
My answer is, That if France were fully cultivated and peopled, the
introduction of superfluous consumption would be an abuse, and would
diminish the number of inhabitants; as the contrary is the case, it
proves an advantage. I shall now give my reasons for differing in
opinion from the gentleman whose performance I have cited.
As the question is put, you perceive the end to be compassed is, to
render food and necessaries abundant; because the abuse is considered in
no other light, than relatively to the particular effect of diminishing
the proper quantity of subsistence, which the king would incline to
preserve, for the nourishment and uses of his people. I shall therefore
confine myself chiefly to this object, and if I shew, that these
superfluous employments of the surface of the earth, and prodigal
consumptions of her fruits, are really no harm, but an encouragement to
the improvement of the lands of France _in her present state_, I shall
consider the question as sufficiently resolved: because if the abuse, as
it is called, proves favourable to agriculture, it can never prove
hurtful to population. However, from the inattention of the government,
it may affect foreign trade, but this is an object entirely foreign to
the question. But before I enter upon the subject, it is proper to
observe, that I am of opinion, that any system of oeconomy which
necessarily tends to corrupt the manners of a people, ought by every
possible means to be discouraged, although no particular prejudice
should result from it, either to population, or to plentiful
subsistence.
Now, in the question before us, the only abuse I can find in these
habits of extraordinary consumption, appears relative to the character
of the consumers, and seems in no way to proceed from the effects of the
consumption. The vices of men may no doubt prove the cause of their
making a superfluous consumption, but the consumption they make can
hardly ever be the cause of this vice. The most virtuous man in France
may have the most splendid table, the richest clothes, the most
magnificent equipages, the greatest number of useless horses, the most
pompous palace, and most extensive gardens. The most enormous luxury to
be conceived, in our acceptation of the term, so long as it is directed
to no other object than the consumption of the labour and ingenuity of
man, is compatible with virtue as well as with vice. This being
premised, I come to the point in hand.
France, at present, is in her infancy as to improvement, although the
advances she has made within a century excite the admiration of the
world. I shall not go far in search of the proof of this assertion.
Great tracts of her lands are still uncultivated, millions of her
inhabitants are idle. When all comes to be cultivated, and all are
employed, then she will be in a state of perfection, relatively to the
moral possibility of being improved. The people are free, slavery is
unknown, and every man is charged with feeding himself, and bringing up
his children. The ports of the country are open to receive subsistence,
and that nation, as much as any other, may be considered as an
individual in the great society of the world; that is, may increase in
power, wealth, and ease, relatively to others, in proportion to the
industry of her inhabitants. This being the case, all the principles of
political oeconomy, which we have been inquiring after, may freely
operate in this kingdom.
France has arrived at her present pitch of luxury, relatively to
consumption, by slow degrees. As she has grown in wealth, her desire of
employing it has grown also. In proportion as her demands have
increased, more hands have been employed to supply them; for no article
of expence can be increased, without increasing the work of those who
supply it. If the same number of inhabitants in the city of Paris
consume four times as much of any necessary article as formerly, I hope
it will be allowed, that the production of such necessaries must be four
times as abundant, and consequently, that many more people must be
employed in providing them.
What is it that encourages agriculture, but a great demand for its
productions? What encourages multiplication, but a great demand for
people; that is, for their work? Would any one complain of the
extravagant people in Paris, if, instead of consuming those vast
superfluities, they were to send them over to Dover, for a return in
English gold? What is the difference between the prodigal consumption,
and the sale? The one brings in money, the other brings in none: but as
to food and necessaries, for providing the poor and frugal, their
contingent, in either case, stands exactly the same.
But, says one, were it not for this extraordinary consumption, every
thing would be cheaper. This I readily allow; but will any body say,
that reducing the price of the earth’s productions is a method to
encourage agriculture, especially in a country where grounds are not
improved, and where they cannot be improved; chiefly, because the
expence surpasses all the profits which possibly can be drawn from the
returns? High prices therefore, the effect of great consumption, are
certainly advantageous to the extension of agriculture. If I throw my
rich corn fields into gravel-walks and gardens, I suppose they will no
more come into competition with those of my neighbour, the laborious
husbandman. Who will then lose by my extravagance? Not the husbandman.
It will perhaps be said, the nation in general will lose; because you
deprive them of their food. This might be true, were the laying waste
the corn fields a sudden revolution, and extensive enough to affect the
whole society; and were the sea-ports and barriers of the kingdom shut:
but that not being the case, the nation, upon the smallest deficiency,
goes to market with her money, and loses none of her inhabitants.
OBJ. But if living is made dear, manufacturers must starve, for want of
employment.
ANSW. Not those who supply home consumption, but only those who supply
foreigners living more cheaply; and of such I know but few. The interest
of this class shall be fully examined in another place. At present I
shall only observe, that the laying waste corn fields in an industrious
country, where refinement has set on foot a plan of useful husbandry,
will have no other effect, than that of rendring grain for a while
proportionally dearer: consequently, agriculture will be thereby
encouraged; and in a few years the loss will be repaired, by a farther
extension of improvement. This will make food plentiful and cheap: then
numbers will increase, until it become scarce again. It is by such
alternate vicissitudes, that improvement and population are carried to
their height. While the improvement of lands goes forward, I must
conclude, that demand for subsistence is increasing; and if this be not
a proof of population, I am much mistaken.
I can very easily suppose, that a demand for _work_ may increase
considerably, in consequence of an augmentation of riches only; because
there is no bounds to the consumption of _work_; but as for articles of
nourishment the case is quite different. The most delicate liver in
Paris will not put more of the earth’s productions into his belly, than
another: he may pick and choose, but he will always find, that what he
leaves will go to feed another: victuals are not thrown away in any
country I have ever been in. It is not in the most expensive kitchens
where there is found the most prodigal dissipation of the abundant
fruits of the earth; and it is with such that a people is fed, not with
ortolans, truffles, and oysters, sent from Marenne.
OBJ. Roads of a superfluous breadth are carried many times through the
finest fields, belonging to the poor and industrious, without a proper
indemnity being given.
ANSW. The with-holding the indemnity is an abuse; the loss of the fields
is none _to the state_, except in such countries where the quantity of
arable lands is small, as in mountainous provinces; there a proper
consideration should be had to the breadth, because the loss cannot be
made up. In such countries as I here describe, and I cite the Tirol for
an example, I have found all the inhabitants in a manner employed in
that species of agriculture, which is exercised as a method of
subsisting. The little ground that is arable, is divided into very small
lots; the people multiply very much, and leave the country. Those who
remain are usually employed in cutting wood, for building and burning,
which they send down the rivers, and in return buy corn, which comes
from the south and from the north. This is the best plan of industry
they can follow, without the assistance of their sovereign. Roads here
are executed to great perfection, with abundance of solidity, and with a
tender regard for the little ground there is. I return to France.
OBJ. A multitude of superfluous horses are kept in Paris, which consume
what would feed many more inhabitants.
ANSW. True: but he who feeds the horses, because _he thinks_ he has use
for them, would not feed those inhabitants, because _he is sure_ he has
no use for them: and did he, in complaisance for the public, dismiss his
cattle, the farmer, who furnishes the hay and oats, would lose a
customer, and nobody would gain. These articles are produced, because
they are demanded: when additional inhabitants are produced, who will
demand and can pay, their demand will be answered also, as long as there
is an unemployed acre in France.
OBJ. The increase of the consumption of wood for firing is hurtful to
population, because it marks the extension of forests.
ANSW. This consequence I deny; both from fact and reason. From fact,
because forests are not extended, and that nothing but the hand of
nature, in an ill-inhabited country, seems capable of forming them. In
France, forests are diminishing daily; and were it not for the
jurisdiction of the _Table de marbre_, they would have been more
diminished than they are. I agree, that the consumption of wood is at
present infinitely greater than formerly, and likewise, that the price
of it is greatly risen every where. These two circumstances rather seem
to mark the contraction, than the extension of forests. But the increase
of consumption and price proceed from other causes, as I shall shew, in
order to point out some new principles relative to this extensive
subject. 1. The increase of consumption proceeds from the increase of
wealth. 2. The increase of price proceeds from the increase upon the
value of labour, and not from the scarcity of forest, nor the height of
the demand for firing. As to the first, I believe the fact will not be
called in question, as it is one of the superfluities of consumption
complained of, and put down to the account of luxury and extravagance.
As to the second, the true cause of the rise of the price of that
commodity demands a little more attention, and in order to point it out
with some distinctness, I must first shew the political impossibility of
forests becoming extended over the _arable_ lands of France in her
present situation.
The best proof I can offer to support my opinion is, to compare the
inconsiderable value of an acre of standing forest in the king’s
adjudications, where thousands are sold at a time, with the value of an
acre of tolerable corn lands, and then ask, if the present value of
forests is so considerable, as to engage any proprietor to sow such a
field for raising wood, when he must wait, perhaps 40 years, before it
be fit for cutting? Add to this, that whoever plants a tree in France,
comes under the jurisdiction above-mentioned, and is not at liberty to
cut it down, and dispose of it, without their permission. It is in a
great measure for this reason, that so few trees are seen about French
villages; and I never heard of one example, of corn lands being sown
with the seeds of forest-trees, with a view to improvement. That
forests, which are well kept, may extend themselves over grounds not
worth the cultivation, I do not deny; but this surely can do no harm to
agriculture; and it is only in that respect, I pretend that forests in
France are not at present in a way of gaining ground.
Now as to the rise in the price of wood for burning, I say, it proceeds
not from the rise of the price of timber growing in forests, so much as
from the increase of the price of labour, and principally of the price
of transportation. This is not peculiar to France alone, but is common
to all Europe almost, for the reasons I shall presently give. But in the
first place, as to the matter of fact, that the rise in the price
proceeds from the cause assigned, may be seen, by comparing the low
price of an acre of standing forest, with the great value of the timber
when brought to market: the first is the neat value of the wood; the
last includes that of the labour.
Next as to the price of labour; the rise here is universal in all
industrious nations, from a very plain reason, easily deducible from the
principles above laid down.
While the land remained loaded with a number of superfluous mouths,
while numbers were found in every province employed in agriculture, for
the sake of subsistence, merely, such people were always ready to employ
their idle hours and days, for a very small consideration from those who
employed them. They did not then depend upon this employment for their
subsistence; and a penny in their pocket purchased some superfluity for
them. But when modern policy has by degrees drawn numbers from the
country, the few that remain for the service of the public must now
labour for their subsistence; and he who employs them, must feed them,
clothe them, and provide for all their other wants. No wonder then, if
labour be dearer: there is a palpable reason for the augmentation.
The price of all necessaries has risen, no doubt, partly for the same
reason, and this circumstance certainly enters into the combination: but
work, in the country especially, has risen far beyond the proportion of
the price of necessaries, and will rise still more as the lands become
better purged of superfluous mouths.
Notwithstanding what I have said, I readily allow, that the great
consumption of wood for burning, but more particularly for forges, has
considerably raised the intrinsic value of forest lands; but the
consequence has not been, to extend the forests, as we have shewn, but
to produce a general revenue from them all over the kingdom; whereas
formerly, in many provinces, they produced almost nothing. When they
were cut, cattle were turned in, and by eating up the tender shoots from
year to year, the forest ran into a wild, neither producing timber, nor
pasture. This practice was established upon the ruling principle of
private interest. The land was not worth the expence of grubbing up the
timber; the timber when grown, did not compensate the loss of a few
years pasture. No jurisdiction, however well administred, can check the
operation of that principle; and a statesman who would attempt it, would
be called a tyrant: he would distress the husbandman, and do no service
to the state.
From what has been said, I must conclude, that while the consumption of
the earth’s produce, and of the work of man tend to excite industry, in
providing for extraordinary demands; when the interest of foreign trade
does not enter into the question; and while there are lands enough
remaining unimproved, to furnish _the first matter_; there can be no
political abuse from the misapplication or unnecessary destruction of
either fruits or labour. The misapplier, or dissipator, is punished by
the loss of his money; the industrious man is rewarded by the
acquisition of it. We have said, that vice is not more essentially
connected with superfluity, than virtue with industry and frugality. But
such questions are foreign to my subject. I would however recommend it
to moralists, to study circumstances well, before they carry reformation
so far, as to interrupt an established system in the political oeconomy
of their country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XXI.
_Recapitulation of the First Book._
[Sidenote: INTROD.]
I set out by distinguishing government from political oeconomy; calling,
the first the power to command, the second the talent to execute. Thus
the governor may restrain, but the steward must lead, and, by direct
motives of self-interest, gently conduct free and independent men to
concur in certain schemes ultimately calculated for their own proper
benefit.
The object is, to provide food, other necessaries and employment, not
only for those who actually exist, but also for those who are to be
brought into existence. This is accomplished, by engaging every one of
the society to contribute to the service of others, in proportion only
as he is to reap a benefit from reciprocal services. To render this
practicable, the spirit of the people must be studied, the different
occupations prescribed to each must first be adapted to their
inclinations, and when once they have taken a taste for labour, these
inclinations must be worked upon by degrees, so as to be bent towards
such pursuits as are most proper for attaining the end desired.
[Sidenote: CHAP. I.]
He who sits at the head of this operation, is called the statesman. I
suppose him to be constantly awake, attentive to his employment, able
and uncorrupted, tender in his love for the society he governs,
impartially just in his indulgence for every class of inhabitants, and
disregardful of the interest of individuals, when that regard is
inconsistent with the general welfare.
Did I propose a plan of execution, I confess this supposition would be
absurd; but as I mean nothing farther than the investigation of
principles, it is no more so, than to suppose a point, a straight line,
a circle, or an infinite, in treating of geometry.
[Sidenote: CHAP. II.]
To prepare the way for treating this subject, in that order which the
revolutions of the last centuries have pointed out as the most natural,
I have made the distribution of my plan in the following order.
Population and agriculture are the foundations of the whole. Civil and
domestic liberty, introduced into Europe by the dissolution of the
feudal form of government, set trade and industry on foot; these
produced wealth and credit; these again debts and taxes; and all
together established a perfectly new system of political oeconomy, the
principles of which it is my intention to deduce and examine.
Population and agriculture, as I have said, must be the basis of the
whole, in all ages of the world; and as they are so blended together in
their connections and relations, as to make the separation of them quite
incompatible with perspicuity and order, they have naturally been made
the subject of the first book.
[Sidenote: CHAP. III.]
I have shewn, that the first principle of multiplication is generation;
the second is food: the one gives existence and life; the other
preserves them.
The earth’s spontaneous fruits being of a determined quantity, never can
feed above a determined number. Labour is a method of augmenting the
productions of nature, and in proportion to the augmentation, numbers
may increase. From these positions, I conclude,
[Sidenote: CHAP. IV.]
That the numbers of mankind must ever have been in proportion to the
produce of the earth; and this produce must constantly be in the
compound ratio of the fertility of the soil, and labour of the
inhabitants. Consequently, there can be no determined universal
proportion over the world, between the number of those necessary for
labouring the soil, and of those who may be maintained by its produce.
Here I am led to examine the motives which may induce one part of a free
people to labour, in order to feed the other.
This I shew to proceed from the different wants to which mankind are
liable.
[Sidenote: CHAP. V.]
Here I introduce a statesman, as being necessary to model the spirit of
a society. He contrives and encourages reciprocal objects of want, which
have each their allurement. This engages every one in a different
occupation, and must hurt the former simplicity of manners. I shew how
essential it is, to keep a just balance throughout every part of
industry, that no discouragement may be cast upon any branch of it,
either from superfluity, or want; and I have pointed out, how the
dividing of food between parents and children, is the means of bringing
on scarcity, which inconveniency can only be removed by an augmentation
of labour.
If a society does not concur in this plan of reciprocal industry, their
numbers will cease to increase; because the industrious will not feed
the idle. This I call a state of a moral impossibility of increase in
numbers, and I distinguish it from the physical impossibility, which can
take place only when nature itself, not man, refuses to produce
subsistence. From this I apply to each particular society what I had
before found applicable to mankind in general; to wit,
That the inhabitants of every country must be in the compound proportion
of the quantity of food produced in it, and of the industry of the lower
classes. If the food produced surpass the proportion of industry, the
balance of food will be exported; if the industry surpasses the
proportion of food, its deficiency must be supplied by imports.
Reciprocal wants excite to labour; consequently, those whose labour is
not directed towards the cultivation of the soil, must live upon a
surplus produced by those who do. This divides the society into two
classes. The one I call farmers, the other free hands.
As the creating these reciprocal wants was what set the society to work,
and distributed them naturally into the two classes we have mentioned;
so the augmentation of wants will require an augmentation of free hands,
and their demand for food will increase agriculture.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VI.]
Here I define luxury to mean no more than the consumption of
superfluity, or the supplying of wants not essentially necessary to
life; and, I say, that a taste for superfluity will introduce the use of
money, which I represent as the general object of want, that is of
desire, among mankind; and I shew how an eagerness to acquire it becomes
an universal passion, a means of increasing industry among the free
hands; consequently, of augmenting their numbers; consequently, of
promoting agriculture for their subsistence.
The whole operation I have been describing proceeds upon one
supposition, to wit, that the people have a taste for labour, and the
rich for superfluity. If these be covetous and admirers of simplicity;
or those be lazy and void of ambition, the principles laid down will
have no effect: and so in fact we find, that it is not in the finest
countries in the world where most inhabitants are found, but in the most
industrious.
Let it therefore never be said, there are too many manufacturers in a
free country. It is the same thing as if it was said, there are too few
idle persons, too few beggars, and too many husbandmen.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VII.]
Here I break off my subject, to answer an objection arising from these
principles.
OBJ. How could the simplicity of the antients be compatible with a great
multiplication?
ANSW. In antient times men were forced to labour the ground because they
were slaves to others. In modern times the operation is more complex,
and as a statesman cannot make slaves of his subjects, he must engage
them to become slaves to their own passions and desires; this is the
only method to make them labour the ground, and provided this be
accomplished, by whatever means it is brought about, mankind will
increase.
[Sidenote: CHAP. VIII.]
This question being dismissed, I point out a method of estimating the
proportion of numbers between the farmers and free hands of a country,
only as an illustration of the principle already laid down, to wit, that
it is the surplus of the farmers which goes for the subsistence of the
others.
This surplus I shew to be the same thing as the value of the land rents;
and hence I conclude,
1st, That the rising of the rents of lands proves the augmentation of
industry, and the multiplication of free hands; but as rents may rise,
and yet the number of inhabitants continue the same as before, I infer,
2dly, That the revolution must then mark the purging of the lands of
superfluous mouths, and forcing these to quit their mother earth, in
order to retire to towns and villages, where they may usefully swell the
number of the free hands and apply to industry.
3dly, That the more a country is in tillage, the more it is inhabited,
and the fewer free hands are to be found: that the more it is laid into
pasture, the less it is inhabited, and the greater is the proportion of
free hands.
[Sidenote: CHAP. IX.]
Next I consider the principles which determine the place of residence.
The farmers must live upon, or near the spot they labour; that is,
either upon their farms or in their villages.
The free hands I divide into two conditions. The first composed of the
proprietors of the surplus of food, that is the landlords; together with
those who can purchase it with a revenue already acquired, that is, the
monied interest. The second condition is composed of those who must
purchase some of this surplus with their daily labour.
Those of the first condition may live where they please; those of the
second must live where they can.
When those of the first choose to live together, a considerable number
of those of the second must follow them, in order to supply their
consumption. This forms towns and cities.
When a statesman places the whole administration of public affairs in
the same city, this swells a capital.
When manufacturers get together in bodies, they depend not directly upon
consumers, but upon merchants. The situation of their residence depends
upon circumstances relative to their occupation, provision and
transportation of their work. From this hamlets swell into villages, and
villages into towns. Sea ports owe their establishment to the increase
of foreign trade.
[Sidenote: CHAP. X.]
As the collecting such numbers of inhabitants together is a late
revolution in the political oeconomy of Europe, I endeavour to give a
short historical representation of it, and examine the consequences
which result from it, both to the state from the growth of cities, and
to the land proprietors from the desertion, as I may call it, of so many
vassals and dependents. One principal effect I observe to be, the
additional occupation it has given to statesmen; that is to say,
political oeconomy is thereby become more complex.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XI.]
Formerly the inhabitants were dispersed, and by sucking, as it were,
their mother earth, were more easily subsisted: now industry has
gathered them together, and industry must support them. The failing of
industry, is like the cutting off the subsistence of an army. This is
the care of a general to prevent, that the care of a statesman.
The supporting industry means no more than employing those who must live
by it; and keeping their numbers in proportion to their work. The first
point, therefore, is to find work for the present inhabitants; the
second is, to make them multiply, if the demand for their labour
increases.
Increasing numbers will never remove, but rather augment such
inconveniencies, as proceed from the abuses of those already existing.
In order to employ a people rightly, it is proper to know the exact
state of numbers necessary for supplying the demand for every
occupation; to distribute those who must live by their industry into
proper classes; and to make every class (as far as possible) at least,
support their own numbers by propagation.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XII.]
Where the value of any species of industry is not sufficient for that
purpose, a proper remedy must be applied. When any are found incapable,
from age or infirmities, to gain their livelihood, they must be
maintained. Infants exposed by their parents must be taken care of, and
thrown back into the lowest classes of the people; the most numerous
always, and the most difficult to be supported by their own propagation.
Marriage, without assistance, will not succeed in a class who gain no
more by their industry than a personal physical necessary. Here our
oeconomy differs widely from that of the antients. Among them marriage
was encouraged in many ways; but it was only for the free. These did not
amount to one half of the people. The slaves who represented our lower
classes were recruited from other countries, as they are at present in
America.
If, therefore, according to modern oeconomy, the lowest species of
labour must be kept cheap, in order to make manufactures flourish, the
state must be at the expence of the children; for as matters stand,
either the unmarried gain as much as the married should do, and become
extravagant; or the married gain no more than the unmarried can do, and
become miserable. An unequal competition between people of the same
class, always implies one of these inconveniencies; and from these
principally proceeds the decay and misery of such numbers in all modern
states, as well as the constant complaints of the augmentation of the
price of labour.
Every individual is equally inspired with a desire to propagate. A
people can no more remain without propagating, than a tree without
growing: but no more can live than can be fed; and as all augmentations
of food must come at last to a stop, so soon as this happens, a people
increase no more; that is to say, the proportion of those who die
annually increases. This insensibly deters from propagation, because we
are rational creatures. But still there are some who, though rational,
are not provident; these marry and produce. This I call vicious
propagation. Hence I distinguish propagation into two branches, to wit,
multiplication, which goes on among these who can feed what they breed,
and mere procreation, which takes place among those who cannot maintain
their offspring.
This last produces a political disease, which mortality cures at the
expence of much misery; as forest trees which are not pruned, dress
themselves and become vigorous at the expence of numbers which die all
around. How to propose a remedy for this inconveniency, without laying
some restraint upon marriage; how to lay a restraint upon marriage
without shocking the spirit of the times, I own I cannot find out; so I
leave every one to conjecture.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XIII.]
Although a complete remedy cannot be obtained against the effects of
abusive procreation; yet with the help of accurate lists of births and
deaths for every class of people, many expedients may be fallen upon to
preserve the few who escape the dangers of their infancy, from falling
back into the unhappy class which produced them. From these lists the
degree of mortality and nature of diseases, as well as the difference
between the propagation of the easy and of the miserable, will plainly
appear; and if it be the duty of a statesman to keep all his people
busy, he certainly should acquire the most exact knowledge possible of
the numbers and propagation of those of every denomination, that he may
prevent any class from rising above or sinking below the standard, which
is best proportioned to the demand for their respective industry.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XIV.]
Population and agriculture have so close a connexion with one another,
that I find even the abuses to which they are severally liable,
perfectly similar. I have observed how naturally it must happen, that
when too many of a society propagate, a part must starve; when too many
cultivate, a part must starve also. Here is the reason:
The more of a people cultivate a country, the smaller portion of it must
fall to every man’s share; and when these portions are reduced so low as
to produce no more than what is necessary to feed the labourers, then
agriculture is stocked to the utmost.
From this I divide agriculture into two branches; the one useful, the
other abusive. The first is a trade, that is, a method of producing not
only subsistence for the labourers, but also a surplus to be provided
for the free hands of the state, for their subsistence, and for an
equivalent either in work itself, or for the produce of it. The second
is no trade, because it implies no alienation, but is purely a method of
subsisting. If, therefore, in any country where agriculture is exercised
as a trade, and where there are many free hands, the farmers should be
allowed to multiply up to the proportion of the whole produce; would not
all the free hands be forced to starve? What would be the advantage of
having so many farmers; for there is one evident loss? Every one would
be entirely taken up in feeding himself, wants would disappear; life
indeed would be simplified to the last degree, but the bond of society,
mutual dependence, would be dissolved: therefore I call this species
abusive, in proportion as these effects are produced. I cite several
examples of this abusive agriculture in different countries, where I
take occasion to observe, that the christian virtue, charity, in
proportion to its extent, is as conducive to multiplication as either
slavery, or industry: whatever gives food must give numbers. I do not
say that charity is conducive to industry.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XV.]
I next apply these general principles to a particular representation
given of the state of population in the British isles; from which I
conclude, that population there is not obstructed, either by losses
sustained from war and commerce, or from the exportation of their
subsistence, but from the political situation of that country, which
throws it at present into a moral incapacity of augmenting in numbers.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XVI.]
The establishment of trade and industry naturally rectifies this
misapplication of agriculture, by purging the land of superfluous
mouths, and thereby reduces it, as it ought to be, to a trade calculated
to furnish a surplus, which comes to be sold for the labour of all the
industrious. It is this alone which can rivet the bond of general
dependence among free men who must live by their industry; by making one
part laborious farmers, and the other ingenious tradesmen and
manufacturers. It is by the vibration of the balance between these two
classes, that multiplication and agriculture are carried to their
height. When industry goes on too fast, free hands multiply above the
standard, that is, their scale sinks; this raises the price of food, and
gives an additional encouragement to agriculture: when this again
becomes the more weighty, food becomes plentiful and cheap, then numbers
augment a-new. These reflections lead me to consider the effects of
plentiful and scarce years in modern times, when famines are almost
things unknown; and I conclude,
[Sidenote: CHAP. XVII.]
That were plentiful years more common, mankind would be more numerous;
that were scarce years more frequent, numbers would diminish. Then
applying this observation to the state of exportations of grain from
England, I am tempted to infer, that this kingdom, the most fertile
perhaps in Europe, has never been found to produce, in one year,
eighteen months full subsistence for all its inhabitants; nor ever less
than ten months scanty provision in the years of the greatest sterility.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XVIII.]
When a country is fully peopled and continues to be industrious, food
will come from abroad. When a loaf is to be had, the rich will eat it,
though at the distance of a mile; and the poor may starve, though at the
next door. It is the demand of the rich, who multiply as much as they
incline, which encourages agriculture even in foreign nations; therefore
I conclude, that this multiplication is the cause, and that the progress
of agriculture is but the effect of it.
A country once fully stocked may diminish in numbers, and still remain
stocked. This must proceed from a change in the manner of living; as
when an indolent people quit the consumption of the more abundant
productions of the earth, to seek after delicacies. On the other hand,
the industrious bring an additional supply from abroad, and by
furnishing strangers with the produce of their labour, they still go on
and increase in numbers. This is the case of Holland: and this scheme
will go on, until abuses at home raise the price of labour; and
experience abroad, that universal school mistress, teaches foreigners to
profit of their own advantages.
When food ceases to be augmented, numbers come to a stand; but trade may
still go on and increase wealth: this will hire armies of foreigners; so
the traders may read of their own battles, victories, and trophies, and
by spending their money, never smell gunpowder.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XIX.]
When they cannot augment their numbers, they will introduce machines
into many manufactures; and these will supply the want, without adding
to the consumption of their food. Foreigners, astonished at a novelty
which lowers prices, and checks their growing industry, will copy the
inventions; but being no more than scholars, who go aukwardly to work,
this improvement will throw many of their hands into idleness: the
machines will be cried down, and the traders will laugh in their
sleeves, well knowing that nothing is more easy than to put work into
the hands of an industrious man made idle. Wit and genius, in short,
will always set him who possesses them above the level of his fellows,
and when one resource fails him, he will contrive another.
[Sidenote: CHAP. XX.]
The wit I here mention is not that acquired in the closet; for there one
may learn, that an equal distribution of lands was so favourable to
multiplication in antient times, that it must be owing to a contrary
practice, that our numbers now are so much smaller. But he who walks
abroad, and sees millions who have not one moment’s time to put a spade
in the ground, so busily are they employed in that branch of industry
which is put into their hands, must readily conclude, that circumstances
are changed, and that the fewer people are necessary for feeding the
whole society, the more must remain free to be employed in providing
every other thing that can make life agreeable, both to themselves and
to strangers; who in return deliver into the hands of their industrious
servants, the ensigns of superiority and dominion, money. Who is best
employed, he who works to feed himself, or he who works to be fed,
cloathed, and supplied, disposing only of his superfluities to those
whom, consequently, he shortly must command. This is obtained by the
introduction of the useful species of agriculture, and by the explosion
of the abusive. And when strangers are so kind as to allow their
neighbours the privilege of clothing and adorning them, good nature, not
to say self-interest, demands, in return, that the first be indulged in
a permission to exercise those branches of toil and labour which are the
least profitable, though the most necessary for the subsistence of the
latter.
When the eye of humanity considers the toil of the farmer, and the
indifference of his rich countryman in squandering, the abuse appears
offensive. The rich man is advised to consider of the pain incurred by
the poor husbandman, in consequence of his dissipation. Upon this the
rich, touched with compassion, simplifies his way of life. The
husbandman in a fury falls upon the reformer, and, in his rough way,
gives him to understand, that he by no means looks upon him as his
friend: for, says he, do you take me for the rich man’s slave; or do you
imagine that I toil as I do, either by his command, or for any
consideration for him? Not in the least, it is purely for his money; and
from the time you persuaded him to become an oeconomist, here am I, and
my poor family, starving. We are not the only people in this situation;
there is my neighbour who has all his hay and oats upon hand, since, by
your instigation, likewise, he dismissed his useless horses. Do you
think he will give his oats in charity to feed the poor? He is poor
enough himself, and all those who have been working to get this
provision together are in no better humour than I am. Hold your tongue,
says the reformer, you are a parcel of extravagant fellows, you
labourers. A hundred years ago, one could have got as many of you as one
pleased, for the half of what you cost us at present. Give us back our
lands, says the other, at the rate we had them; and let us all be well
fed before we give you a farthing, and you shall have us as cheap as
ever. But do you think that after you have chased one half of us into
towns, and raised your rents with the price of their food, that we can
work twice as hard, and serve you as formerly? No, Sir! you ought to
have more sense than to expect it.
This is a sketch of the first book; I thought a short abridgment of it
might be of service for recollecting ideas, and ranging them in order
before I proceed.
END OF THE FIRST BOOK.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AN
INQUIRY
INTO THE
PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL OECONOMY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------