{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_73958/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_73958","id":"gutenberg_73958","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/73958","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Debts, Public -- Great Britain -- Early works to 1800","Finance, Public -- Great Britain -- Early works to 1800","Political science -- France -- Early works to 1800","Taxation -- Great Britain -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"THOUGHTS\n                                  ON THE\n                                MECHANISM\n                                    OF\n                                SOCIETIES.\n\n                        By the MARQUIS DE CASAUX,\n                       FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY.\n\n                       _TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH_\n                  (_Under the Inspection of the Author_)\n                          By PARKYNS MAC MAHON.\n\n    _If Men would be content to graft upon Nature, and assist her\n    operations, what mighty effects might we expect!_\n\n                                                          SPECTATOR.\n\n                                 _LONDON,\n                   Printed by T. Spilsbury, Snowhill._\n\n         Sold by G. G. J. and J. ROBINSON, in _Pater-noster Row_;\n              W. RICHARDSON, under the _Royal Exchange_; and\n                        J. DEBRETT, _Piccadilly._\n\n                              M,DCC,LXXXVI.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE BY THE EDITOR.\n\n\nIt is not a _treatise_ that the Author announces; it is nothing more than\n_Thoughts on the Mechanism of Societies_. Such a title does not confine\na Writer to a regular plan; it saves him even the risk of preparing\nhis Readers for a chain of ideas which cannot escape their sagacity if\nit exist, and on which they cannot be deceived if it do not. But in a\npicture consecrated to the world at large as well as to his own Country,\nto the People as well as to their Rulers, it was necessary that the most\nstriking object, the object to which their first attention was called,\nshould be of so general an interest, as to entice them progressively\nto an investigation of all those details which deserve most to be\nscrutinised, and of which the different relations are either little\nknown, or greatly mistaken.\n\nThe object which at present fixes the attention of all the States in\n_Europe_, (all of them either debtors or creditors), is the _National\nDebt of England_, and the measures which will be taken on that subject\nby the Assembly the most clear-sighted of any in the world to every\nthing that concerns the interests of the people, the most jealous of its\nrights, and the most free, at least in its debates. It is by considering\nthat formidable debt, and its influence on the wealth of the State and\nthe ease of the People, that the Author dares to begin. But before he\nproceeds to unfold the mechanism of the national debt, the result of\nwhich developement presents some ideas too opposite to the received\nopinion, he endeavours by degrees to familiarise his Readers with his\nown, by _some general reflexions on the present situation of England_:\nthese reflexions leave him no room to doubt, that _England_ was in\n1779, _notwithstanding the national debt_, richer than she was at the\nbeginning of this century;\u2014richer, either in a fourfold, or in a double\nproportion, as the Reader is disposed to adopt the one or the other rate\nof population: whence it appears that the Author, in respect to his plan,\ndoes not affix any importance to the difference of opinions on this\narticle.\n\n_A more particular view of the subject_ furnishes him with fresh reasons,\nwhich seem to him sufficient to quiet the mind of the most suspicious\ncreditor. It is, indeed, only by means of the _savings_ made, or daily\nto be made, upon eight pence (the exact proportion each individual is\nentitled to in the general revenue), that it has been possible to reach\nthe summit of opulence, and that it is possible to be fixed there:\nbut the Author seeks for such _savings_ in agriculture and industry,\nas cannot be misunderstood; he observes that the savings made in\nagriculture, have proved sufficient, in the course of a century, not\nonly to discharge all the public burdens, but even to double the landed\nrevenue; and he then enters into a detail of several objects, (all easy\nto be ascertained,) which seem to demonstrate a similar progress in\nindustry.\n\nHere our Author, beginning to feel himself on ground sufficiently firm,\nconfesses that he sees nothing in the present situation of _England_,\ntending to justify the idea of a national bankruptcy, although the\npublic news-papers often hint at the convenience of such a measure. The\nauthor even so far forgets himself, as to examine _seriously_, whether\nit would be profitable or unprofitable to effect the so much recommended\n_reimbursement_, _even on the supposition that the 238 millions which\nhave been borrowed, and have disappeared, could find their way back to\nthe Exchequer_.\n\nAfter having presented the question under several points of view, our\nAuthor hesitates not to declare for the negative, and then endeavours\nto prove that a previous _thesaurisation_ which might have enabled the\nnation to go through the last war without laying any additional tax,\nwould have done more harm than the new taxes can possibly have done.\n\nThe Author, become bolder because he meets with no contradiction when he\nis alone, (and indeed he is alone very often) undertakes to reconcile\nmankind to the taxes by means of a first decomposition of the impost;\nhe gives up, it is true, one part of it as burdensome, (it is truly to\nbe lamented that this part cannot be dispensed with; luckily it is the\nleast); but he contends boldly for the other part, as a very precious\nresource for that portion of the people which best deserves to engage the\ncares of Government.\n\nNotwithstanding all the precautions taken by the Author not to frighten\nhis readers, there remains such a leap for him to clear, that he is seen,\nas it were on his knees, begging he may be permitted to try twenty\ntimes, if he cannot clear it in ten: in other words, he earnestly wishes\nthat his work may not receive its final judgement before it has been\nperused to the end; and in fact, it is not impossible but that a detached\nproposition, the absurdity of which is striking when considered singly,\nmay be found conclusive when successively brought near to all those that\nare to follow it.\n\nAn Editor owes more to the Public, than to any work, even such as he\ncould wish to bring into some trifling repute: I think then, it is my\nduty (_in foro conscienti\u00e6_) to declare, that it will not be till the\nReader has perused fifty pages or more, that he will suspect the reason\nwhy the Writer has not announced in the very first, some singular\nopinion, which he meant insidiously to establish as it were step by step\nin his pamphlet; but, at length, we begin to have some notion of what we\nare to expect from a man who has been trying to wheedle us into a belief,\nthat _taxes are a trifling evil;\u2014that ~thesaurisation~ would be a very\ngreat one;\u2014that a reimbursement is at best useless_;\u2014and who afterwards\nmodestly intimates, that some singularities may perhaps escape him _in\nthe sequel_; as if it were possible to imagine any thing more singular\nthan the three propositions I have just quoted.\n\nYet too much severity should not be used. Has the Reader been but amused\nwith the part of the picture hitherto exposed to his view? Let him\nhumour the Author in his little conceits. Who would exhibit for public\nentertainment, if he were not at liberty to draw up the curtain in his\nown way; if he had not a right to display, at every shifting of the\nscene, that part only of his curiosities upon which he meant for that\ninstant to fix the eyes of the spectator?\n\nBut if the Reader, in spite of the different positions into which he has\nbeen attracted, has not observed the least alteration in the compass;\nif he has not been moved by the arguments with which he has been lured\nbefore he came to that part of the work\u2014let him throw the piece into\nthe fire; for the Author, of whom I do not pretend to imitate the\ncircumspection, or adopt the fears, or justify the temerity, or share\nin the guilt, aims at nothing less than to induce _all Europe_ (all\n_Europe_!) to investigate,\n\n_1st_,\n\nWhether it could possibly cost _England_ more than 5 millions sterling,\n(_found once for all_) to secure _for ever_, in the most solid manner,\nthe payment of the interest on a debt of 238 millions, that interest\nrated at 9 millions, of the same currency?\n\n_2dly_,\n\nWhether there be not, (without its being suspected), in the system of\nfinance in _England_, some of those imperfections so well remarked, so\nfully, so bitterly criticised in that of _France_; and whether a national\nreimbursement be not the easiest of all the sports a Minister of finance\ncan think of, to amuse society without serving it?\n\n_3dly_,\n\nWhether the possibility of a balance of trade, _always favourable_,\nbe not as doubtful as the necessity of a national bankruptcy, and the\nadvantage of a national reimbursement?\n\n_4thly_,\n\nWhether an equilibrium in all things (and every where), be not\nindispensable; and whether, to maintain or restore it, any great effort\nof imagination be required on the part of those who fancy they hold the\nbalance?\n\n_5thly_,\n\nWhether the difference of prices be something or nothing; and whether\nmore has been wanted by the _French_ than 66 millions _Tournois_ (_found\nonce for all_), to secure _for ever_, the interest at _5 per cent._ on a\nnational loan of 1,500 millions _Tournois_?\n\n_6thly_,\n\nWhether the monster of a competition (in point of trade) supposed\nunconquerable on account of the low prices with which it should be armed,\nbe not as fantastical as that of a balance always favourable?\n\n_7thly_,\n\nWhether the most justifiable premium for exportation be any thing more\nthan one piece of injustice, become necessary to counterbalance a great\nmany others?\n\n_8thly_,\n\nWhether it do not result from the ever infallible and merely mechanical\nrestoration of an equilibrium in all the prices, that the taxes are in\nthemselves completely innocent;\u2014whether there be more than one kind\nof taxation, which increases only by the exact amount of the tax, the\nwhole mass of prices;\u2014whether the effect of taxation be not trebled by\nall other imposts;\u2014whether the most pernicious of them, (after the\npoll-tax), be not the tax on luxury;\u2014and whether from the instant that\nall kinds of taxes, either judiciously or injudiciously contrived,\nhave re-acted on every thing, the burthen of the national debt is not\nliterally _null_ in all countries?\n\n_9thly_,\n\nWhether, _after monopoly_, credit be not that effect of wealth which\nincreases most the price of every production, both of agriculture and\nindustry?\n\n_10thly_,\n\nWhether a certain country, where smuggling has been prohibited under pain\nof the galleys, be not indebted to smuggling itself for one fifth of the\nproducts of her agriculture, which the merchant and trader turn to their\nadvantage with as little scruple, as if they had not petitioned for the\ndetestable law against the smuggler?\n\n_11thly_,\n\nWhether the absurdity of the general opinion, on the most efficacious\nmeans of establishing a profitable competition, in point of trade, be not\nclearly evinced, by the account of a strange revolution in _France_\u2014a\nrevolution, as indubitable as the two wars in 1755 and 1779?\n\n_12thly_,\n\nWhether the impossibility of the two supposed balances, constantly at\nthe disposal of _England_ and _France_, be not proved, by the very\nfacts adduced in both countries to establish the existence of those two\nmonsters?\u2014Whether that impossibility be not demonstrated by other facts\nas little equivocal; and whether it be not the interest of _England_ and\n_France_ to renounce the Idol, and solemnly abjure both its works and its\npomps?\n\n_13thly_,\n\nWhether imports and exports be not a mere sport, as innocent as the\ngame of tennis? A sport, nevertheless, which all Governments might turn\nto great profit, all Subjects to great advantage, and all States to an\nincrease of power and wealth.\n\n_14thly_,\n\nWhether the generality of exports from _England_, at different periods,\nconsidered with regard to her foreign correspondence, do not demonstrate\na kind of electricity, unthought of hitherto, though not unworthy of\namusing the greatest politicians at their leisure moments?\n\n_15thly_,\n\nWhether the trifling jest of luxury be not equally as innocent as the\ndiversion of exporting and importing; and how much the most fastuous, the\nmost profuse, the most sensual of all monarchs, consumes, above the most\navaricious of all his subjects?\n\n_16thly_,\n\nHow much (not counting shillings and pence) _England_ has lost, when her\nright-arm, as her colonies were called, was lopped off; and how much\n(not counting shillings and pence) _Europe_ might lose by losing her\nsovereignty over both the _Americas_?\n\n_17thly_,\n\nWhether all that had appeared to the Author, as founded in reason and\nequity, do not finally prove (in spite of the general conspiracy of\nall Nations and all Ministers) to be strictly conformable to the most\nstubborn facts;\u2014and whether it do not result from that mass of facts\nand reasons, that the Author\u2019s assertion, the most interesting to\nmankind, (that is, to all Princes and their People) is not of the most\nirrefragable truth, and a truth the most easily brought within the reach\nof all the parts interested therein?\n\nI, though merely Editor, shall venture still further;\u2014I shall suppose the\nresult of this combination of facts and reasons to be, that the means\nhitherto devised as the most proper to alleviate the burdens of the\npeople, were the best devised to oppress them: What matters it to the\npeople, provided they are to be oppressed no longer? What is the time\npast, but the baseless fabric of a vision?\n\nI shall likewise suppose, that from those facts and reasons it should\nresult also, that never was a decrease in the Prince\u2019s revenue more\neffectually secured, than by the contrivances devised to increase it:\nWhat is it to the Prince, provided it be no longer possible to mistake\nthe true means of enriching him?\u2014Is it not the time to come, that should,\nabove all, engross the attention of a Great Prince?\n\nI shall again suppose, as another result, that it has been a mistaken\nnotion, to imagine that the revenue of the People must be lessened, in\norder to increase that of the Prince:\u2014What is that to the Prince\u2014what is\nit to the People\u2014provided both be now convinced, that it is not possible\nto enrich the one, either really or nominally, without enriching the\nother in the same manner, and in the same proportion?\n\nI shall further suppose, that it should evidently result also, that in\nthe Administration of the finances of any country, there is not, there\nhas not been a single principle, nay, not a single idea worthy of the\nname: What is this to the Ministers who now hold that department?\u2014Can\nthey command what is past? And is it not the redressing of abuses, when\ndiscovered, that constitutes the true glory of a Ministry?\n\nTo crown the whole, I shall even suppose, that thence also should result,\nto a very insignificant individual of _America_, a little sprig of\nthat _European_ shrub called Bay-tree:\u2014What would that signify to all\nthe Ministers, all the People, and all the Princes in _Europe_?\u2014Will\n_America_ consume less _European_ goods, or will she produce less gold\nand silver, for having produced an idea?\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\n  Page 149, last line, for 1581, read 1551.\n       158, l. 3, for _extravagance_, read _examination_.\n       194, l. 24, for _20 millions_, read _27 millions_.\n       198, l. 10, for 46_s._ read 46_s._ 8_d._\n       308, l. 13, for _will content_, read _will NOT content_.\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note: The errata have been corrected, along with a few\nminor typographical errors.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                      Page\n\n  _Thoughts on the Mechanism of Societies._                              1\n\n  _A general View of the present State of Great Britain._                3\n\n  _A more particular View of the same Subject._                         12\n\n  _Clear Savings of the Manufactories, Trade, and other Branches\n    of Industry._                                                       17\n\n  _Thoughts on Impost and Reimbursements. The Accumulation of\n    public Treasure considered as the Means of preventing Taxation._    27\n\n  _On the grievous, but necessary Part of the Impost._                  36\n\n  _Of the Part of the Impost which is more useful than grievous._       41\n\n  _Objections of another Kind against paying off the national Debt._    51\n\n  _In what Manner the Interest of the national Debt will be probably\n    paid off._                                                          59\n\n  _Reflexions on the two foregoing Articles._                           76\n\n  _A Thought substituted to that of a Reimbursement._                   83\n\n  _General Balance of Trade in ~England~._                              93\n\n  _Reflexions on some private Balances of ~England~, both of the\n    favourable and unfavourable Kind._                                 111\n\n  _Balance between ~England~ and ~Holland~._                           116\n\n  _\u2e3a between ~England~ and ~France~._                                  123\n\n  _Further Reasons why all Ideas of a favourable Balance different\n    from that which I have supposed should be rejected._               126\n\n  _Equilibrium necessary in all Things. Of the surest Means of\n    establishing it._                                                  130\n\n  _Various Causes of the Alterations in the Prices._                   137\n\n  _On the Influences of the national Prices on the Sales in foreign\n    Markets._                                                          151\n\n  _A necessary Principle of Trade considered both as direct and in\n    competition._                                                      159\n\n  _Reflexion on a Letter from ~Philadelphia~ inserted in the\n    ~English~ News-papers._                                            170\n\n  _Under what Point of View Premiums and other Encouragements of\n    Exportation may be considered._                                    182\n\n  _On the Influence of the various Kinds of Taxation upon national\n    Prices._                                                           188\n\n  _On the Object of all Ministers of Finance in laying Taxes._         192\n\n  _Effects of a general Poll-tax._                                     193\n\n  _Effects of a Land-tax._                                             196\n\n  _Reflexions on the foregoing System._                                203\n\n  _Effects of an Impost exclusively laid on Luxury._                   208\n\n  _Effects of a merciless Tax upon all Articles of the most general\n    Consumption._                                                      218\n\n  _Effects of compound Taxation._                                      223\n\n  _Some Doubts on the supposed Impossibility of laying all Taxes on\n    Consumption._                                                      231\n\n  _Recapitulation of the foregoing Thoughts on Taxes, and their\n    Effects._                                                          242\n\n  _Further Considerations on the Necessity of a Correspondence\n    between the Prices of Agriculture and those of Industry._          248\n\n  _Of a Cause little suspected of high Prices._                        257\n\n  _The happy Issue of a desperate Combat between Monopoly and some\n    private Interests._                                                265\n\n  _Reflexions on a very strange Revolution in ~France~._               270\n\n  _The pretended Balance of ~France~ in Point of Trade._               291\n\n  _Exportations and Importations considered as a Game._                308\n\n  _The nominal Value of the generality of Exports considered, with\n    Respect to its Effect on foreign Correspondence._                  338\n\n  _On Luxury._                                                         352\n\n  _On Colonies._                                                       372\n\n  _Preface in ~French~._                                               399\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nTHOUGHTS ON THE MECHANISM of SOCIETIES.\n\n\nThe first step that led to civilisation was, probably, some kind of\nslavery, whatever might be its nature. It seems impossible that the\nstrongest and most industrious, following no other impulse than that\nof a consciousness of his superiority, should have come to the noble\nresolution of sharing generously, with the weak and idle, the fruits of\nhis own labours and industry; nor can it be supposed that he could suffer\nany one, but himself, to pronounce on the prerogatives due to his courage\nand his abilities. But the most consummate knowledge of the means which\nmay have paved the way to despotism, would throw but a faint light on the\nvarious subjects which I propose to take under consideration. The Epoch\nwhich it may be useful to dwell upon, is that, wherein the chiefs of the\ndifferent states, being in no anxiety for an authority which is no longer\ncontested, are the first to acknowledge its limits, and begin at last to\nbe solicitous for the happiness of their subjects.\n\nSuch, in my opinion, is now the prevailing system all over Europe.\nThe advantage of true freedom is fully felt, and its influence over\nall-commanding wealth universally acknowledged. But, in order to compare\nthe inferences with the principles, to appreciate the measures by their\neffects, I shall fix upon that Nation whose avowed maxims, and best known\ncircumstances, are most likely to furnish me with a train of arguments,\nwithout having recourse to any further suppositions but such as may\nappear necessary to clear up the facts that will be adduced in support of\nthose arguments, and to render the consequences, to be deduced from them,\nmore lucid and pointed.\n\nI shall begin with the most interesting article in the present situation\nof affairs, namely, how far the wealth of a State, and the affluence of\nthe Subject, may be affected by a NATIONAL DEBT?\n\n\n\n\n_A general View of the present State of GREAT BRITAIN._\n\n\nMr. _Arthur Young_\u2019s valuation of the Revenue, in his Political\nArithmetic, is the result of his own private observations. Nothing ever\noccurred to me on the subject, that can come up with the minute accounts\nhe gives us of the different provinces which he has visited in the north,\nsouth, and east of _England_.\n\nI am ready to suppose, with that gentleman, that the joint revenue\nof _England_ and _Scotland_ may be computed, the landed produce and\ncommercial profits included, at 110 millions sterling.\n\nMr. _Chalmers_ has published a work on the comparative resources of\nthis country at different periods; a subject, it seems, difficult to\ntouch upon without examining the state of population. This publication,\naccording to my judgement, unites to such solid principles as the matter\nwill admit, a great deal of propriety in the manner of applying them, and\nof drawing the inferences.\n\nI willingly acquiesce, taking it for granted, with the author, that\n_Great Britain_ contains 9,350,000 inhabitants: but, at the same time,\nI apprise the reader, that I do not mean to take any advantage of a\npopulation more or less numerous; nor of a larger or smaller amount of\nthe revenue. _Data_ I require; but such I will prefer as most nearly\nborder on reality. There is not a State to which, with a difference in\nthe numbers, one may not apply what I have to say concerning _England_,\nin those which I have adopted.\n\nIt appears from the estimates of Mr. _King_, who, in the reign of\n_William_ and _Mary_, proved himself as exact an observer as Mr. _Young_\nhas done in our days, that the produce of Land alone amounted then to\n32,000,000; the latter calculator nearly doubles it, by rating it at\n63,000,000. The Custom House books, the exactness of which cannot be\ndisputed in one of the two facts they vouch to, (_the Burthen of the\nShipping, and the Produce of Exportation_,) will shew that the former,\nfrom the year 1709 to 1773, progressively increased from 289,318, to\n775,078 tons; and the years 1697, 1698, 1699, taken upon a medium and\ncompared with 1771, 1772, and 1773, tend to prove that the gradual rise\nof the Exports has been still more considerable, being from 5,612,058_l._\nto 16,027,937_l._ (Vide _Sir Charles Whitworth\u2019s State of Trade_).\n\nThe foreign trade of _England_ seems therefore to have trebled since the\nbeginning of the present century. We shall, in the sequel, state the\nreasons for supposing the commerce of other nations to have experienced\nthe same progression.\n\nThe annual sum of 110,000,000, divided amongst 9,350,000 inhabitants,\nwill produce daily little less than 8 pence per head, from the Monarch\ndown to the meanest subject.\n\nThe observations I have made in several parts of _France_, from\ndocuments, it is true, no ways comparable to those of Mr. _Young_,\ncould not justify my allowing so large a revenue to each individual in\nthat kingdom. Yet _France_ and _England_ are the two richest and most\nflourishing countries in _Europe_.\n\nMr. _Young_ rates the clear profits of the Manufactories and Trade of\n_England_ alone at 37 millions; but as these two objects have apparently\nbeen trebled in regard to the exports, they cannot be supposed to have\nexceeded 12 millions in the reign of _William_ and _Mary_. To this let\nus add, in a proportion rather exaggerated, 5 millions for the landed and\ncommercial revenues of _Scotland_; and it will appear, that, including\nthe 32 millions of landed produce, as computed by Mr. _King_, the total\namount of the revenue, land and trade of both countries included, could\nhardly be equal to 49 millions in the beginning of the present century.\nNow, from the same author, both kingdoms contained at that period\n7,200,000 inhabitants, who, if admitted to a brotherly share, would have\nclaimed only 4\u00bd_d._ each per day. I do not confine myself to a nicer\nexactness in the fractions: the object is not to calculate the precise\ninstant of an eclipse; or at least, that of English prosperity appearing\nto me no ways probable, I think myself justified in neglecting every\nthing that might impede my operations, without influencing, in the least,\nmy arguments.\n\nYet the wages of a journeyman were nevertheless rated then at 8_d._\nper day: but let it be observed, that the number of working-days, when\nbalanced with the holidays, sickness, and want of employment, those eight\npence, distributed in the journeyman\u2019s family, were often reduced to two;\njust as the sixteen pence, the present price of labour, according to Mr.\n_Young_\u2019s Estimate, commonly amount to 4_d._ only, although the brotherly\nshare of each man nearly amounts to 8_d._ If any one should be inclined\nto call this, injustice, let him consider that this very multitude of\nreductions from 4_d._ to 2_d._ and from 8_d._ to 4_d._ from _William\nIII._ to this present time, has been the only means of accumulating by\ndegrees that immense stock of 600 millions and upwards, manifestly laid\nout by the State in less than a century, and of which the National Debt\nmakes a part. It is evident that if each individual, from _William III._\nhad only spent at the rate of 5_d._ per day, there would be no National\nDebt; but as each man of the nation could, generally speaking, and upon\nan equal proportion, lay out only 4\u00bd_d._ per day, the exceeding halfpenny\nmust have long ago swallowed up the whole principal, the produce of\nformer reductions.\n\nNot one of the monuments erected since that period would now exist, nor\nwould a single trace be left of the stocks to which the nation owes\nits present wealth: each portion of the national stock, every monument\nposterior to that era, prove as many persons reduced in the origin from\n4_d._ to 2_d._ and then from 8_d._ to 4_d._ as either of the above two\nsums are oftener told in the value of such monument, or such stock as\nmight be made the subject of inquiry. No country in the world can boast\nof a more respectable source of its opulence.\u2e3aThis opulence must either\nbe given up, or the inconveniences that attend it be submitted to. In all\nparts of the world the labourer earns a livelihood, and very little above\nthat: yet this very trifle is sufficient to make him happy, wherever he\ncannot be compelled to work without pay. He feels little, never takes the\ntrouble of thinking, and leaves off work only to eat, make merry, or go\nto rest.\u2014Is our lot better, with that fatal degree of reflection by which\nour whole life so often centers within a single point?\n\nBut is the nation in general as happy in our days as it was in those of\n_William III_? Have those causes, which tend to produce a decrease in the\npopulation, no manner of influence on the people\u2019s happiness? And is not\nthe reality of such causes more self-evident, than the pretended proofs\nadduced universally in favour of its increase?\n\nWithout entering into any dispute on the merits of the researches\nconcerning population, which would lead to some truths perhaps unthought\nof hitherto; here follow the arguments which will occur to any man who\nstands not in need of a fixed and precise number of thinking heads,\nlaborious hands, and well-digesting stomachs.\n\n1st. It is not easy to conceive how, the landed revenue being nearly\ndouble, there should be a less number of husbandmen; for it is not\nwith agriculture as we find it in several manufactories, where the\ninvention of engines, and an alteration in the mode of working, can so\nadvantageously supply the supposed decrease in the number of hands to\nwork after the primitive manner. The valuable number of husbandmen seems\ntherefore, in my opinion, placed beyond even the idea of a decrease.\n\n2dly. It is no less impossible to imagine, that the number of sailors\nbeing nearly in a triple proportion to what it was, and the quantity of\nexports probably augmented on account of the burden of the outward-bound\nships, a diminution should have taken place among that class of people,\nequally precious to the State, for establishing and ascertaining its\nwealth and strength, as the cultivation is indispensable to secure and\nsupport its very existence.\n\n3dly. If, notwithstanding the acknowledged impossibility of proving a\nreal decrease in the population, any one should obstinately admit of\nit, without positive proofs, it cannot at least be denied, that the\nproduce of land and industry being nearly doubled, some means must have\nbeen devised, to do that with one hand which required two before. In\nthis case it would be an easy matter to prove, that at the rate of the\nsupposed depopulation, the few elect, who have escaped its causes, can\nboast of enjoyments in a threefold proportion to what they were before,\nnotwithstanding the difference between the present impost and that which\nwas paid in the beginning of this century: for, after all, the taxes\nunder _William III._ amounted to four millions and a half and upwards, to\nbe deducted from forty-nine millions standing revenue; the balance was\ntherefore forty-four millions and a half, to be shared amongst 7,200,000\ninhabitants, acknowledged by Mr. _King_; that is, very little above 4_d._\nper day for each individual. Now, in the year 1779, for I have not yet\nexceeded that period, the impost was of about nine millions, which, taken\nfrom an income of 110 millions, left a surplusage of 101,000,000_l._ to\nbe divided. If we adopt the supposed depopulation at its highest rate,\nthe number of souls in _England_ is reduced to 4,500,000, each of whom\nhas 1_s._ 3_d._ instead of 4_d._ allowed in the reign of _William_. It is\nthen incontestible that the Nation is richer, but, I must own, not more\nhappy; for they complain and are alarmed at this time, as was then the\ncase.\n\nIt would be necessary to allow the supposition of an increase, if the\nintention were to shew that the people are now in a worse condition: nor\ncould even this be deemed sufficient; for, admitting the existence of\n9,350,000 inhabitants, it will appear, that, by the surplusage of 101\nmillions left, after the discharge of the taxes in 1779, each individual\nwould be entitled to 7_d._ instead of the groat, in _William_\u2019s reign.\n\nThe nation therefore in that year, in spite of its public debt, had\nalmost doubled its wealth, rating the population at 9,350,000; and raised\nit four-fold, supposing the number reduced to 4,500,000 souls: and in\neither case, the riches of the State, as well as the national debt, arose\nand increased from the daily reductions of 4_d._ to 2_d._ and of 8_d._ to\n4_d._ which, since the reign of _William_ to this day, have escaped from\nthat all-devouring canker, commonly called LUXURY.\n\n\n\n\n_A more particular View of the same Subject._\n\n\nI wish to inquire more minutely, whether such facts as are known do not\ncast a sufficient light over all the others in general, to induce the\nmost anxious and pressing creditor, and the nicest in point of proofs, to\nsleep in the utmost security, till some particular discovery pleads in\njustification of his alarms.\n\nThe present revenue of _England_ is stated at 63 millions; that of\n_Scotland_, at about 7 millions; collectively, 70,000,000_l._ It will\nbe seen hereafter, that 65 or 75 millions would give the same essential\nresults: I must however add, if any thing more should be wanted, that,\nin his estimate, Mr. _Young_ does not include the horses, hemp, flax,\nvegetables, fruit, nor hops, &c. all of which are reproduced annually,\nand augment considerably the number of exchanges held out to industry.\n\nThis landed revenue is produced by somewhat more than one third of the\ninhabitants.\n\nIt remains for us now to compute, at the lowest, the income produced\nby a second class of people, probably as numerous as the former, since\nnot less than 1,500,000 persons of both sexes, and of all ages, are\nemployed solely in preparing and working the wool. (See _Chalmers_\u2019s\nEstimates.) But if the labour of 3,000,000 of husbandmen brings in 70\nmillions annually, why should that of an equal number of mechanics and\nhandicraftsmen stand for less in the computation? To this reason let the\nfollowing remarks be added.\n\nOut of the 70 millions, 20 come to the share of the cultivators, either\nas the price of their labour, or for poor\u2019s rates; 12, of these 20\nmillions, at least, are laid out for the produce of industry: bread, it\nmay be observed, is comprised in the remaining 8 millions.\n\nLet us state the number of proprietors at 2,000,000, including all\ntheir dependents, under any denomination whatever, women, children,\nchaplains, farmers, physicians, strollers, servants, &c. and their annual\nexpenditure, in the rough produce of the land, at 18 millions, there\nremains only 32,000,000, which must be paid by the industry, already in\nadvance, of the 12,000,000 exchange granted to the cultivator. It is\nobvious that I speak here only of that kind of industry which may be\nproductive of exchangeable commodities, even against those of foreign\nproduce.\n\nThree millions of mechanics do not live more soberly, nor are they worse\nclothed, than the husbandmen: it may therefore be inferred, that out\nof the 20 millions, which they likewise receive for their labour, they\nlay out in the produce of industry, 12 millions, which, added to the 44\nmillions I have just mentioned, make, all together, 56 millions.\n\nThe manufacturers and principal traders, under every denomination,\nwith their dependents of all kinds, complete the necessary number of\nthe supposed population of 9,350,000 inhabitants, that is, 1,100,000\nsouls, themselves, the idle people supported by them, and their\nhousehold included. Supposing their consumption of the rough produce\nto be proportionable to that of the proprietor, their expenditure will\nbe 10,000,000; but then we must square by the same rule what they lay\nout for the produce of industry: 18 millions will be the sum, which,\ntogether with the other 56 millions, makes a mass of 74, instead of\nthe 70,000,000 acknowledged in agriculture. Even this would not be\nsufficient, for reasons which I shall give in the sequel; but I shall\nobserve, in the first instance, that were the population less numerous\nthan we have supposed it to be, the same consumption of the rough produce\nis certainly inadmissible: but the landed revenue remaining the same,\nthough procured by a less number of hands, it would then become necessary\nto estimate the amount of the labours of industry, effected by a number\nof handicraftsmen, equal to that of the cultivators, from the ascertained\nvalue of the latter\u2019s productive labour.\n\nI now return to the _deficit_ wanted for the security of a constant\nincrease of wealth, which may at all times supply all the exigencies of\nthe State.\n\nThe 18,000,000 consumed on the produce of industry, as granted to the\nprincipal traders, seem to raise them to 4,000,000 above their real\nvalue; I mean, that which is acknowledged in the produce of agriculture.\nIt is not under colour of the supposed interest of the enormous\nprincipal, which gives motion to the manufactures and to the inland\ntrade; it is necessary that industry should contribute its stock, as\nwell as agriculture. The principals laid out, by the one or the other,\nare a matter of indifference to the state; it can speculate but on their\nproduce, and pays exactly the interests, when it rates at the same value\nthe result of the labours of both; but, to the 70 millions assigned as\nthe indisputable produce of industry, (supposing a laborious man to be as\ngood as any other equally industrious) we must add the intrinsic value\nof the rough materials on which industry hath wrought: This accession,\nwhich is also fair and equitable, will furnish, not only the 4,000,000,\nwhich annually exceed the home consumption just mentioned, but likewise\nall the millions necessary to secure, and mean while explain, this\ngradual increase, which it would be difficult not to trace in trade, as\nit is observable in the landed property. The latter is doubled within the\nspace of 90 years; from whence we are forced to conclude, that the annual\nsavings of the farmers, and owners living on the spot and cultivating\ntheir estates on the true principles of husbandry, have sufficed to\ndischarge, not only the public burdens, and to defray the manuring\nexpences, but also to double the produce and the general means in the\nmost important article. It remains now to examine, whether the savings\nof the manufacturers, traders, and other supporters of industry, are as\nindisputable as those made by the cultivators.\n\n\n\n\n_Clear Savings of the Manufactories, Trade, and other Branches of\nIndustry._\n\n\nThe riches of a country, and its progress, are established and\nconfirmed by its savings. Let us consider cursorily such as, from their\nself-evidence, admit of no dispute.\n\nNinety years ago the landed revenue of _Great-Britain_ was computed at\nabout 35 millions. Let us suppose that 10 millions of specie were then\nrequired to give an effectual circulation to property of all kinds,\n(many people will think this by far too little[1]): but the revenue of\nlanded estates, being now 70 millions, 20 millions at least, instead of\nthe 10 millions requisite in the times of _William_ and _Mary_, should\nbe allowed; and consequently a first clear stock of savings amounts\nto\u201410,000,000_l._\n\nThe consumer in those days was probably allowed, as is still the custom,\na twelve-month\u2019s credit upon half the articles purchased. Some of them\ntook a longer time, if others a shorter one; but the stock of credit\nbeing then equal only to 35 millions, and now raised to 70 millions, we\nhave clearly another mass of savings of\u201435,000,000.\n\nThen, as in the present time, the preparing, manufacturing, and\ndelivering, required six, twelve, or eighteen months. Let us suppose the\nyear, upon an average of the slowness of one operation, and the celerity\nwith which another was performed, we shall find again, in the difference\nof the flock, a third saving of 35,000,000.\n\nIf we suppose the value of manufactories, dwellings, warehouses, and all\nkinds of establishments, necessary to answer all the exigencies of a\nstock of industry and commerce of 35,000,000, to have amounted then to\n25,000,000, we must admit that the objects in the same manner necessary\nto a stock of 70,000,000, do likewise present us with a fourth clear\nsaving of\u201425,000,000.\n\nIn order to employ those hands by whose labour the annual sum of\n35,000,000 was produced, 10,000,000 were probably sufficient;\nwhereas 20,000,000 are now required. This shews a fifth clear saving\nof\u201410,000,000.\n\nThe annual returns from the _American_ islands was computed, 90 years\nago, at about 330,000, (Sir _Charles Whitworth_\u2019s State of Trade). Half\nof this produce was, in all likelihood, mortgaged to commerce; but it\nonly supposed a stock of 3,000,000 at most lent, it matters not at\nwhat interest. The yearly produce of those colonies, added to that of\nthe ceded islands, amounts, at present, to more than 2,900,000; more\nthan one-third of which belongs to the trader, either as purchaser or\nmortgagee, and exhibits a sum of about 20,000,000, from which we shall\nsubstract the former 3,000,000; and considering (for a moment) those\ncolonies as being foreign to the State, we shall find a sixth clear\nsaving of\u201417,000,000, (the petition of the merchants in 1775, supposes it\nto be 30,000,000.)\n\nThe _English_ might perhaps be out of humour with me, were I to suppose\nthat the continent of _America_, stands on the debtor side, for no more\nthan 4,000,000; I shall therefore set down this article as\u2014_Memorandum_.\n\nEighty years ago the amount of exportation from _England_, was estimated\nat 5,612,085_l._ In 1773, upon a medium of three years, the same was\nincreased to 16,027,937: of the exceeding 9 or 10 millions, one part\nappropriated to the commerce in _Europe_, another to the _American_, a\nthird to the _East-India_ trade, remain one, two, and sometimes three\nyears, before they can be applied to the same objects. These 10,000,000\ntherefore suppose a stock more than double the same sum, and ought, in\nconsequence, to be set down as a seventh clear saving of\u201410,000,000.\n\nThe _English_ ships, employed eighty years ago in carrying on the\nnational trade, presented only a sum of 289,318 tons burden; the number\nof tons is now rated at 775,078. This increase of 485,760, together with\nthe expence attending the fitting out, going and coming, produce a stock\nof 5,000,000, which must be doubled, by compensating the voyages of\nsix and eight months, by those which require two or three years: here,\ntherefore, appears an eighth clear saving of\u201410,000,000.\n\nThe proprietor of lands should not be considered in this light, in the\nuse he makes of his yearly profits, but with respect to that part of his\nsaid profits which he lays out in cultivation: In regard to that share of\nhis income which he invests in the funds, we must consider him as member,\nagent, and usufructuary of industry and commerce. Now, if we divide\ninto three parts the whole of the national debt, one-third of which, if\nagreeable, we shall set down as foreign property, and the other two as\nbelonging to the natives, we must of course acknowledge in the nation a\nnew sum of clear savings, amounting to 180,000,000. This, in fact, should\nnot be considered as a real increase of wealth, which it is at all times\neasy to appreciate, but as a proof that there exists, in the nation, an\ninestimable number of men, who are capable, in the space of ninety years,\nto effect a saving of 180,000,000, which government will have it in its\npower, within the same space of time, to appropriate to the exigencies\nof war, if potentates should continue in a warlike humour; or to lay out\nin objects of industry and cultivation, supposing an improvement of the\nrevenue should be preferred to a state of warfare.\n\nI shall not speak either of the difference which may be observed between\nthe present state of the Royal navy, and the situation it was in at\nthe beginning of this century, nor of the public monuments erected\nfrom that period, nor of the _India_ territories, nor of the Colonies\nremaining to _England_; provided the objection concerning the money due\nto foreigners is not repeated against me, as I am in hopes, by and by, to\nfind some kind of compensation for it. I shall therefore confine myself\nhere, to observe, that the above savings of all kinds of industry, some\nof them active, the others passive, all equally necessary, assisting\neach other mutually, no doubt, and finally amounting to 332 millions,\nhave been effected in the course of 90 years; not with any sensible\ndetriment to the landed property, since its revenue is doubled, nor to\nthe disadvantage of the lower class of people, whose day-work brings in\n1_s._ 4_d._ instead of 8_d._ nor to the prejudice of the fine arts, the\nrewards of which are perhaps fourfold, comparatively speaking; but solely\naccording to the common course of things, _restrained, nevertheless, by\na war of 30 years and upwards, out of the 90_, and by all the prejudices\nwhich the present generation begins to shake off, and which probably will\nbe entirely abolished in the next.\n\nIt is no ways natural that the same causes will not be productive of the\nsame effects. It may therefore, in my judgement, be reasonably concluded,\nthat, within 90 years from this day, the landed revenue may be increased\nto double its actual value, and the population, trade, and industry,\naugmented in the like proportion, were even the national debt to amount\nthen to 476,000,000, instead of the present 238,000,000, which excites so\nmany complaints and loud murmurings.\n\nIn fact, let us suppose the debt arrived at a height so apparently\nformidable, _and the price of every thing proportionably increased_;\nwould the former be less firmly established? Methinks that the very\ncontrary is demonstrated by calculation, and that imagination cannot\nframe any rational objection thereto; at least I am free to confess,\nthat all my efforts have not been able to produce any combination of\nprobable circumstances, which might, in any supposition, justify the\ndread of that _application of the sponge_ which is so often held out\nas a resource that sooner or later must be adopted. Setting aside the\ninfamy of such a measure, what advantage would accrue from it? Let it\nbe adopted this moment in _London_, within three days the same step\nmust inevitably be taken at _Paris_. A man\u0153uvre of this kind would\nmanifestly indicate either the most hostile intentions on the part of the\n_English_ government, or the project of overturning the constitution: the\nlatter concerns _England_ alone; but in the former, _France_ is deeply\ninterested. That power would be compelled to put itself in a situation to\noppose an immense and free revenue, to a revenue equally immense without\nappropriation. Were, on the other hand, the _French_ to lead the way,\n_England_ must inevitably follow; and the unprofitable disgrace would\nbe the portion of either of the two nations that should have set up the\nprecedent.\n\nBut who will see without grief, 2,000,000 interest due to foreign States!\n2,000,000 in specie carried out every year from _England_! _England_\nyearly stript of 2,000,000 of her money!!! It will be seen hereafter\nin what that money consists. Yet with personal stocks so real, so\nconsiderable, so clear, what can prevent _Great Britain_ wresting from\nthe foreigner, the share he claims in the national debt? The reason is\nobvious: the owner of landed property, or the farmer, who hopes to get\nsix _per cent._ of the stock which he lays out upon his lands, instead of\nvesting them in the funds, envies not the foreigner who is glad to get\n5, 4, or even 3 _per cent._ On the other hand, the merchant who trades\nby commission, and who has an opportunity of placing in the colonies\nhis money at 5 _per cent._ interest, which is raised to 8 and 9 by\nhis commissions for sale and purchase procured therewith, cannot wish\nhimself in the situation of a stranger, whose stock in the _English_\nfunds brings him in, not above one half of that sum. It is still less an\nobject of envy for the manufacturers, or owners of ships, who, from their\nmanufactories or shipping, clear 10 or 12 _per cent._ of the monies laid\nout by them: the projectors of all kinds likewise flatter themselves,\nthat the stock employed in their undertakings will produce 15 _per cent._\nTo sum up the whole in much fewer words, the prospect of 3 or 4 _per\ncent._ is not likely to tempt any one, who is in hopes of getting a two,\nthree, or even four-fold interest. And in fine, the public funds, in any\ncountry whatever, will never be more or less than a lucky, _or rather a\nprovidential_, resource for those who have neither talent, power, nor\nleisure, to place their money to better advantage.\n\nNow, would the abolishing of such a resource turn to the profit of the\nState, even supposing it to be effected by the justifiable means of a\ngeneral reimbursement, were the case possible? I have too often reflected\non the subject, too often revolved it over and over, I have viewed it\nunder too many points, not to be sensible how far above my strength it\nis to discuss the matter in all its parts; I shall nevertheless venture\nto throw out some thoughts, which to me seem likely to render somewhat\nproblematical a question which, at first sight, does not appear anyways\ndifficult to resolve.\n\nThis question is not, whether it would be more advantageous to the\nState, not to have contracted a debt of 238 millions; but whether, since\nit is incurred, it would be profitable to discharge it. To doubt of\nthe former, would be absurd: 238 millions thrown away almost entirely,\nwithin the space of 90 years, to forward destructive schemes, now no\notherwise compensated than by a double devastation of the same kind,\nin a neighbouring kingdom, which by a treble population was able to\nsupport it, would certainly have been better bestowed, in both countries,\neither on the lands, whose revenues and number of cultivators would have\nincreased, or in the improvement of the trade and arts, the stock and\n_chef-d\u2019\u0153uvres_ of which would thus have been multiplied. But the debt\nbeing once incurred, let us suppose that the 238 millions, which are\nvanished, should return into the Exchequer, would it be proper or not to\npay it off? Thus stands the question.\n\n\n\n\n_Thoughts on Imposts and Reimbursements.\u2014The Accumulation of public\nTreasure considered as the Means of preventing Taxation._\n\n\nThe present impost in England, as the case is almost every where,\nconsists of two parts widely different from each other: the one is\ncertainly burdensome, but necessary;\u2014of this hereafter. Might not the\nother, which concerns the national debt, however grievous it may appear,\nbe considered as an useful establishment, so long as it shall be presumed\nthat the increase of the national wealth, and its being divided amongst\na greater number of individuals, is an advantage to the State; \u201cor, in\nother words, until it shall appear evidently, that the welfare of the\nState requires that each of its members should lay out annually all that\nhe is able to spend?\u201d Before I attempt to deliver my opinion on these two\nsubjects, I shall suppose the reimbursement possible, and resolved upon.\n\nNine millions of taxes, to pay off the annual interest of the debt,\ncompose nearly one seventh of the landed revenue. These taxes, gradually\nlaid on such objects of consumption as are supposed most likely to bear\nthem, must have raised their price by one seventh, or something more; and\nthat really, justly, and I think necessarily. The reader will perceive\nthat I speak of the objects of taxation collectively, since some of them\nbring to the Exchequer twice their intrinsic value. The reimbursement\nbeing effected, would they fall back to their primitive value?\u2014Yet this\nmust be, in order to reap the pretended advantage; and this, in my\nopinion, would be of no manner of service. I shall endeavour to prove\nit; and then we shall examine whether the effect would not be more than\ndoubtful.\n\nIt would be no easy matter to assign, for certain general facts, any\nother cause than the force of Nature; who, in the end, gets the better\nof all the regulations that thwart her. But let any one examine whether\nthere be a single untaxed object, which, from 90 years back, or, to speak\nmore to the purpose, from the origin of the national debt, is not raised\nmore than one seventh, above the nominal value it had at that period.\nIt is therefore sufficiently probable that the taxes have been felt, not\nonly by the consumer of the taxed commodities, (according to the laudable\nintentions of Government) but also by the whole nation, by all the\nindividuals that compose it:\u2014And this, in my opinion, is equally just and\nunexceptionable.\n\nYet, it may be urged, that this increase in price is to be ascribed to\nthe greater quantity of specie in circulation. Granted. In this case, a\nfalling-off in the prices, accruing, as it is supposed, from a decrease\nin the taxes, which is represented as the effect of a reimbursement,\ncannot then take place:\u2014besides, as the sequel will show, the taxes\nunavoidably bring in, one way or the other, even in the first year, the\nwhole money required to pay the same. I shall argue on both suppositions.\nIs the increase in the prices owing to the taxation? It appears,\nevidently, that the taxes bring in the sums necessary to pay them, since\nthey are actually and annually paid:\u2014This money, then, must be withdrawn\nfrom the circulation, in order to lower the prices. Is this increase the\neffect of an augmentation of the specie? Then it will be necessary, in\norder to ascertain the primitive price, to recall from the circulation\nall the money which has been introduced since, and in spite of the taxes.\nNow if, in spite of the taxes, a country abounds with money, how should\nit not be so, supposing no duties had been laid?\u2014How can the abolition\nof the taxes prevent the introduction of cash?\u2014How will it come to\npass, that the mass of specie being increased, the prices shall not be\nraised?\u2014And if all of them augment, in a fair proportion, who will gain\nby it, who will suffer?\n\nBe it supposed, nevertheless, for this is my main object, that the\nabolition of the taxes will lower the price of the mass of taxed\ncommodities.\u2014The same force of nature, which, without the intervention\nof any one, had raised the generality of untaxed objects up to the rate\nnecessary to balance the imaginary value, which the tax added to the\nothers, would operate in a contrary sense, and diminish, insensibly, the\nprice of those articles which might have been overlooked:\u2014What would be\nthe advantage accruing to the State from a general and proportionable\ndecrease?\u2014Let us not think yet of the pretended profit that would result\ntherefrom, in favour of trade, with relation to foreign competition: this\nmatter requires a particular article. The only business now in hand,\nis to examine, whether, in case the reimbursement should be effected,\nthis general decrease of prices, which I have just granted, could be\neffectually obtained.\n\nThe reflections which I have hitherto laid before the reader, suppose\nthat the refunded 238 millions would irrevocably be transferred from the\nExchequer into the hands of those unfortunate individuals who might have\nbeen forced to receive their reimbursement. But one must live. Government\ncould not carry injustice so far as to compel them to bury, or cast into\nthe deep, that precious metal, ripped up at so great an expence from the\nbowels of the earth. What consequence would then ensue, if that immense\nsum put into circulation, not in _England_ alone, where such an addition\nof specie would, in less than six months, occasion a six-fold rise of\nprices, but over all _Europe_, where probably treble that stock never\nwas in circulation?\u2014The price of every commodity would treble, or at\nbest double, perhaps universally.\u2014What advantage could the State, or\nindividuals, derive from such unavoidable, general, and proportionable\nrise?\u2014Were the reimbursement practicable, instead of effecting it, I\nshould vote for laying out the 238 millions in erecting a colossus of\ngold and silver, to be a standing monument of public gratitude towards\nthose whose \u0153conomy and confidence have served the State in its needful\ncircumstances.\n\nThe absurdity which might be imputed to such an idea I shall partly do\naway, by stating the effects of laying up treasures, as has been the\nfancy of several princes, and which is supposed profitable by Mr. _David\nHume_, who, methinks, ought to have been one of the first to rest assured\nof its inutility, after his excellent observations on money.\n\nI shall suppose that the _English_ government had preserved, seven years\nago, the 60 millions and upwards, expended during the last war; and that,\ninstead of laying those taxes so highly complained of, they had annually\nlaid out of the Exchequer, the 12, 15, 20,000,000 sterling, which\nsuccessively produced the last debt: what might have been the result?\n\nFirst, If the very useless prohibition of the exportation of specie,\nhowever it _might_ be profitable to those who could export it, could\nhave possibly been put in force, 60 millions of real cash added, in\na country where 20 millions perhaps are sufficient for circulation,\nmust have doubled at least the price of every thing; a consequence\ndiametrically opposite to what it was intended to effect. Would it not,\nin some respect, have ruined the Bank, by rendering useless its nominal\nstock, in lowering the interest of its real one, and reducing, in fine,\nits abilities so much below the level of public wants, when the general\nprices, two-fold increased, would have raised, in the same proportion,\nthat of every engagement?\n\nSecondly, The evil would have been less fatal than I describe it, if the\nprohibitory law, as all those that militate against justice and common\nsense, had been evaded; but the gold hoarded up heretofore, and now\nsupposed to be circulated over _England_, would, by succession, have\npassed into _France_: and the latter, in order to continue the war, would\nhave borrowed, even of the _English_, at four, and presently at three\n_per cent._ the monies which she could not procure at less than seven or\neight _per cent._ Now money growing more common in _France_, the prices\nwould be, as in _England_, and soon after every where else, increased\nin the same proportion; for it is essential to observe, that those two\nnations are too rich, their correspondence too extensive, their activity\nkept up by too many branches of industry, for them not to regulate\nthe markets all over _Europe_: it is probable that both are now too\nenlightened any longer to refuse receiving it, not one from the other,\nbut from Nature herself, who, constantly provident, ever above the reach\nof untoward regulation, at all times unbiassed in bestowing her favours,\nor equipoising one by the other, would settle, only a little later,\nnotwithstanding all efforts to the contrary, that equilibrium necessary\nto the general good of Society, of which it is glorious enough for those\ntwo countries to constitute the preponderant parts.\n\nThirdly, Independent of this general and inevitable repartition of the 60\nmillions laid up heretofore, the 10, 15, and 20 millions, which _England_\nhas found yearly, during the last war, in the purse of her subjects,\nwere, beyond doubt, that portion of capitals, which the circumstances\nof such a war as the last was, would have rendered useless in the hands\nof the lenders, had government found in the Exchequer those sums which\nwere obtained by way of a loan. Can it be doubted but that this portion,\nuseless in _England_, in the supposition of a prior accumulation of\nmoney, would equally have been sent into _France_, on the first prospect\nof placing it to advantage?\u2014It would have been carried there, just\nas the _Dutch_ had formerly sent into _England_ the dormant part of\ntheir capitals, and would send it any where, at all times when sure\nof benefiting by it, were it even against the interest of the _United\nProvinces_, saying with _Camilla_, in _Corneille_\u2019s Tragedy of the\n_Horatii_,\n\n    \u201cRome, si tu te plains que c\u2019est-l\u00e0 te trahir,\n    \u201cFais toi des ennemis que je puisse ha\u00efr.\u201d\n\nIt will appear by the sequel, that I am as far from cutting off such\nresources, as are deemed infallible, and dictated by prudence, in order\nto support with vigour a necessary war, as I am from raising the least\ndoubt concerning the right of waging war, be it ever so unprofitable\nand unjust. My only intention was to prove, that treasures hoarded up\nin time of peace, and scattered afterwards during a war, in order to\navoid taxation, would raise much higher the prices of everything, than\ntaxes of any kind whatever could raise them. And I do now say\u2014make war\nas long as you please, but do not accumulate for the purpose of waging\nit. Your monies, locked up in your strong chests, could not be sheltered\nfrom every kind of accidents; and whilst you can boast of subjects\nequally brave and industrious, you will never want money, nor means to\ncarry on any war you may undertake: but then you must submit to that\naugmentation of prices, which must naturally follow. I flatter myself I\nshall be able to prove, that this very increase is subject to no manner\nof inconvenience.\n\n\n\n\n_On the grievous, but necessary part of the Impost._\n\n\nWhich part of the impost is truly hurtful to the wealth of nations?\nA standing army of 50,000 men in time of peace, both for the sea and\nland-service, and 50,000 more employed, either upon the different\nobjects relating to those services, or to maintain good order and public\ntranquillity, or intrusted with the collection of the revenue, are\nevidently 100,000 men, taken in _England_ from that last class which,\nthough _last_ in point of rank, is nevertheless the sole instrument of\nthe national riches. Now, out of the _given_ number of 9 millions of\ninhabitants, 6 millions only constitute this precious, this productive\nclass; the other 3 millions consist merely of consumers: from the 6\nmillions, allowed in the productive class, deduct 4 millions of children,\nold people, and women, half of whose life is taken up with the cares\nand incumbrances of a domestic nature; of this truly profitable class\n3 millions only will then remain. A hundred thousand men, all stout,\nvigorous and skilful, constantly withdrawn from that class, occasion a\nvacuum of about a twentieth in the productions of the land, and of the\narts, that is to say, (for there should be no illusion in the case) the\ntwentieth part of the possible wealth. That portion of the impost, which\nis set apart for the subsistence of those 100,000 men, is therefore, in\nsome manner, burdensome; since society is thus deprived, not only of\nthe produce of their industry, but also of that part of other people\u2019s\nlabour which they consume without contributing towards it: but amends\nare amply made for those indispensable privations, by the property being\nbetter secured, and enjoyed in full tranquillity. Besides, that part of\nSociety, which suffers most thereby, does not belong to the productive\nclass; the latter, as has been already observed, is, in the richest as\nwell as in the poorest countries, ever reduced to that pittance which\nis but just necessary to keep up industry. Nations the most free differ\nin this point from those who groan under the most slavish despotism,\nonly by the insolence with which this scanty pittance, if refused, is\ninsisted upon in a free country, and the humble manner in which it is\nsued for in the others. The difference of natural talents, displayed in\ntheir utmost energy, suffices to establish, sooner or later, amongst the\nfreest people, that enormous disproportion of wealth which gives offence\nelsewhere, only because it is not always the proof or reward of labour,\nabilities, and \u0153conomy.\n\nLet any circumstance whatever, either well or ill judged, occur, which\nmay determine the nation to complete to 200,000 the 50,000 sailors and\nlandsmen that are sufficient in time of peace; 150,000 more men will be\ntaken from the productive class, which must, of course, occasion a second\nvacuum, viz. the productions with which they would have enriched or\namused their country. But the loss will not end here; other 300,000 men,\nmany more perhaps, from the same class, constantly busy, during the war,\nin preparing the intended destructive plans, will unavoidably occasion\na farther loss of four or five other twentieths in the other enjoyments\nof peaceable times, to which, had not other occupations interfered,\nthey would have contributed: and if the war should last for 3, 4, or 10\nyears, it is evident that, in the latter supposition, the nation must\nlose all that increase of wealth which would have been effected, had the\nprincipal, swallowed up by the war, been differently employed. This loss\nis considerable, immense, and never can be retrieved; for what was then\nomitted, will never be done; what will be effected, might equally have\nbeen so, without preventing the productions which would already have\ntaken place.\n\nAll these _deficits_ in wealth, occasioned by the war, are a substantial\nloss; and the prospect would be dispiriting indeed, were not the\nrival nation in the very same predicament. But will this grievous\nloss be after the peace active, as it were, and felt by the community\nlonger than the time required for the 2, 3, or 400,000 men, employed\nduring the war in forwarding the destructive schemes, to resume their\npeaceable occupations; or till the number of them, who shall have died\nin _America_, the _Indies_, of the scurvy, or at the fatal tree, be\nreplaced by the ordinary course of population?\u2014This I cannot conceive by\nany means: some of the reasons, which I have to adduce, will be found\nin the reflections I am about to present on the second part of the\nimpost, which seems to me not less useful than the first is necessary:\nall my other arguments will appear in the other parts of this work.\nIf it can be concluded from the _ensemble_, that all the evils brought\nabout by a bad or ill-fated administration, are naturally, and without\nexpence, compensated under a wise ministry, and that the most barbarous\nand most extravagant of them all could have no other means of ruining\nthe nation than by destroying the people; then, made easy on the effects\nof the national debt, we shall have courage enough to acknowledge,\nthat it is as sacred in the hands of those, who, having furnished the\nvalue, are in possession of the vouchers, as the crown on the head of\nthe monarch; and we shall enjoy the freedom of mind necessary to infer,\nthat although Providence often seems to leave to chance the destiny of\nsome individuals, yet it is very far from being indifferent to all that\nconcerns the whole species[2].\n\n\n\n\n_Of that part of the Impost, which is more useful than grievous._\n\n\nThe part of taxation, which now remains to be considered, is that which,\nat every instant, presents to any one, a secure and useful employ of all\nthe capitals at his disposal, and of all the savings which prudence hath\ninduced him to make. The utility of the public funds, which are nothing\nelse but the national debt, might seem established by these few words;\nbut further details are necessary.\n\nI have adopted the estimate by which _England_ is supposed to contain\n9,300,000 inhabitants; one-third cultivates the land, one-third is\nengaged in manufactures, and of the remaining third, 600,000 at most\nshare among them the neat produce of cultivation and the arts, in\nproportion to the capitals with which they keep in play those two engines\nof opulence. All the remaining part of the people, as dependents under\nwhatever denomination, look, for their subsistence, to the friendship,\nhumour, pride, or wants of the 600,000 proprietors.\n\nOut of 70 millions, at which the landed revenue throughout _Great\nBritain_ is computed, 33 millions are absorbed by the unavoidable\nexpences, and accessary charges attending cultivation, or annexed to the\nproperty. The proprietors share among themselves 20 or 25 millions; the\nother 12 millions go through the hands of farmers, as a very equitable\nrecompence for their trouble, and as a liberal interest for a personal\nstock of 120 millions necessary to the produce of the revenue. (Vide Mr.\n_Arthur Young_.) On the best use possible of these last 120 millions,\nsolely depends the increase of landed profits: but it is only by degrees,\nand the concurrence of favourable circumstances, that the landed property\ncan effectually receive the increase of the capital, which is calculated\nto augment that produce.\u2014Does it conduce to the interest of the State,\nthat, till then, the farmer should keep inactive the capital appropriated\nto so material an object, or that he should lay it out to improve the\nlands before it is wanted, or that, waiting for the instant of need, he\nshould employ it in such manner as not to have it at command when the\nneedful time is arrived?\u2014This question cannot be answered, I think, but\nin the negative; and it appears to me, that, on this point at least, I\nmay assert positively, that an establishment, which puts into the hands\nof the farmer, at the very juncture when he wants it, that portion of\nhis capital which had hitherto been useless, _and which however was,\ntill then, (owing to such an establishment) advantageous to some one\nelse_, is, of all others, the most profitable, wherever the object is,\nto give to every capital that degree of activity and utility of which\nit is susceptible. Therefore, a reimbursement which would deprive the\n_capitalists_, farmers, and active proprietors, of a resource equally\nsafe and profitable, would not only prove fatal to the order of citizens\nespecially interested in the landed revenue, but to all those who, whilst\nthe money intended for the improvement of land, is unapplied, make use of\nit in some advantageous speculation, which becomes important to the arts,\nand to commerce.\n\nWe have already observed, that out of the three last millions of\ninhabitants, 600,000 _capitalists_ only share among themselves the\nneat profits of the arts, and of cultivation. There remain therefore\n2 millions 400,000 dependents, who look up, for their subsistence, to\nthe caprice, the pride, or wants of those opulent men. Now out of that\nnumber of dependents under every denomination, servants, clerks, lawyers,\nphysicians, &c. several thousands are to be reckoned, who, tired of\ntheir situation, put by constantly, part of the wages of servitude, in\norder to secure to themselves and their posterity a more free and less\nequivocal existence.\u2014Would the State be benefited, were this class of\nmen, as essential as any other parts of society, to bury, as it were, the\nsurplus of their layings-out, till they should have amassed the sum they\nmight think sufficient for their intended purpose?\u2014Would not the money,\nthus lying idle, occasion a chasm in circulation, which would turn to the\nprejudice of trade, thereby deprived of part of its resources?\u2014Besides,\nif the want of a chest, safe from the attempt of robbers, and other\ninconveniences, a chest which is not only a security for them, but\naffords an interest for the money therein deposited, should necessitate\nthem prematurely to embark in some scheme foreign to their occupation,\nwhich must be either abandoned or neglected: would not that knowledge,\nwhich they have derived from experience in all matters relating to their\nprimitive avocation, be entirely lost to the public?\u2014A reimbursement\ntherefore which would deprive that part of society, much more wretched\nand dependent than either the mechanic or the cultivator, of a resource\nwhich, from its certainty, induces the former to fulfill with more zeal\nand exactness, the duties they have imposed on themselves, would prove a\nmeasure as hostile to humanity, as it would be contrary to sound policy.\n\nIn the immensity of commercial operations, how many capitals to a\nconsiderable amount, unemployed during two, three, four, and six months,\nare indispensably wanted at the precise period! Would it turn out to\nthe advantage of the State, if a considerable capital, useless for six\nmonths to the holders, and for the like space of time essentially wanted\nby those who possess none, should lie dormant in the proprietor\u2019s chest,\ntill time should give it life, and make it useful?\n\nBut it may be urged, a man buying stock in the public funds, would lend\nto the seller (were no such funds established) the sum which he gives\nfor his purchase.\u2014That he might do so, there is not the least doubt: But\ncould he depend on receiving the money at the time appointed for the\nrepayment? May not the best man to-day, be a bankrupt to-morrow, and\nbreak for a million; and if the enterprise, to the execution of which\na merchant appropriates, to be paid in six months, that portion of his\ncapital, which till then has been to him unprofitable, should require\nthat punctuality which alone could insure its success, will not prudence\ncompel him to give up six months interest, that his undertaking may not\nbe left entirely to chance?\u2014Will not the public have lost the fruit which\nmight have been reaped from that dormant capital, had the owner been at\nliberty to dispose of it?\u2014And, will the same public flatter themselves\nthat the six months interest which the merchant was obliged to sacrifice,\nin order to secure the execution of his plan, will not be reckoned in the\nexpenditure?\n\nSome will say, with no small degree of acrimony, \u201cHow many drones\nare supported at the expence of the public funds! These are only an\nencouragement to idleness.\u201d\n\nBut do the persons before spoken of, come within this description? And,\nif the man who has laboured in his youth, chooses to repose himself\nin his old-age, is this pretended idleness any thing more than that\n_otium_, that leisure, so justifiable, and so sweet, after a toilsome\nlife, when the state of the mind, and of the heart, cease to make labour\nnecessary?\u2014And, supposing, that after his death his wealth devolves to an\nideot, must the son of an industrious father, who has served the State\nboth by his \u0153conomy and labour, be deprived of his resource?\n\nIt might be objected, that my reasoning derives its force from the bare\nsupposition of a total reimbursement, the possibility of which no one can\nadmit; but were it subjoined, that, by acknowledging the impracticability\nof the measure, we suppose its expediency;\u2014were it farther said,\nthat the public papers have often spoken of, and do still point out\nas the readiest and surest way to effect it, _the application of the\nsponge_;\u2014were it added, that the first geniuses of _England_, _France_,\nnay, of all _Europe_, have advanced, and do still maintain, that such\na measure will one day or other become unavoidable;\u2014then we should be\nforced to acknowledge, that it would be no inconsiderable service to\nhumanity, to spare no endeavours to convince the people, that no greater\nease, power, or happiness, would accrue to them, were the nation to\nresolve upon its own disgrace.\n\nNor would it, in my opinion, be a more difficult talk to prove, that from\na real and gradual reimbursement, no other advantage could result, than\nbringing about by degrees and more imperceptibly, an evil which would\nprove equally unprofitable to all.\n\nI set aside the outcry against the interest yearly paid to foreigners,\nas the produce of the sums vested by them in the funds, because I think\nruin impossible, where the money borrowed at 4 or 5, is laid out at\nan interest of 6, 7, or even 10 _per cent._ I likewise overlook the\ndeclamatory complaints on the fate of the handicraft and husbandman;\nbecause the laws of _Lycurgus_ should be revived, or the government must\nconfine itself to protect those two classes of men against every sort\nof private vexation, and to secure to them the trifling salary to which\nthey are every where and forever doomed. In spite of avarice the salary\nmust be raised, if the prices of every necessary should increase; and\nwere these to fall in their value, mutiny itself could not prevent a\ndiminution of wages.\n\nThat part of the people which truly deserves, and should engage the\nattention of government, is that crowd of dependents, in the other class,\nof which I have already spoken: like the cultivator and artificer, they\nhave no other stock than the passions and wants of the _capitalists_.\nThese would be much more wretched than the others, if the education\nthey have received, carrying their thoughts constantly and in spite of\nthemselves beyond the present moment, government should in a manner\ncompel them to center them all within that narrow space. The merchant\nnever has more in the funds than that portion of his capital, which, for\nthe moment, is useless to his trade. The farmer, and the proprietor who\nmanages his own estate, _considered under these two heads_, have at no\ntime in the funds more than that portion of their capitals, the actual\nuse of which upon the lands they cultivate, might turn rather to their\nprejudice than profit. The annihilating of the public funds, or, in other\nwords, a partial reimbursement, a gradual discharge of the debt, could\ntherefore affect those three orders of stockholders no farther than to\ndeprive them of this way of increasing their capitals, without running\nany risk; and those are, undoubtedly, the smallest part of the sums which\nconstitute the national debt. Which is, then, the order of citizens that\nreceives the larger share of the interest funded for that debt? It is\nthat multitude of dependents whom the political \u0153conomy of society has\ndoomed to toilsome occupations useful to that society, or to laborious\nstudies, of which that very society daily reaps the benefit: it is to\nthat multitude of widows and orphans of both sexes, whose future support\nthe unfortunate class above-mentioned thought to have secured by means\nof the present privations which they had imposed on themselves: it is to\nthose children whose elder brothers are in possession of all the family\nreal estate, and whose parents hoped to have fixed their condition and\nsettled their fortune by the only means that can effectually obviate,\nnot the injustice of an unequal division, since it is admitted, but the\ninconvenience resulting from the indivisibility of the landed property,\nwhich devolves to the eldest.\n\nYet if, in a State, we must be father, brother, sister, widow, orphan,\n_capitalist_, in fine, or without a capital, but with the faculty of\nacquiring one; which, then, is the class of citizens interested in paying\noff, either totally, or in part and by degrees, the national debt, when\nonce it is incurred? Besides, if the reimbursement cannot be effected but\nat the public expence, what advantage will the public derive from this\noperation?\n\n\n\n\n_Objections of another kind against paying off the National Debt._\n\n\nThe nominal amount of a loan which nothing obliges us to repay, is a\nmatter of a very little importance; the interest agreed upon for the\nborrowed sum, is the only thing that deserves attention. The total of\nthe interest in _England_ is now about nine millions, three millions of\nwhich could not be procured but by laying taxes on those objects which\nhad hitherto escaped the penetrating eye of the financiers, and by\ndoubling or trebling the impost on those which appeared less liable to\nthe inconveniences attending such an additional increase.\n\nBefore I examine in what mode the taxes operate, I shall suppose, for the\nsatisfaction of the sensible and benevolent mind, that this formidable\nburden falls only on the consumer of such objects as are taxed. The only\nplausible aim of a reimbursement, is a diminution of the taxes which lie\nso heavy on that consumer; but the misfortune is, that the only means of\nrefunding, is to devise new taxes, or increase the former ones. Besides,\nif this increase be trifling, the reimbursement cannot be effected in\nless than a century. I freely confess, that in this case, the proprietors\nof the public funds would be less aggrieved, having then sufficient time\nto think on the less disadvantageous modes of replacing their stock; yet,\nI repeat it, not less than a century would suffice to discharge that\nvery debt; and the public being a little more burdened annually, than\nthey would have been had not the project of paying off the debt been\nstarted, would have no other compensation for the additional burden, than\nthe distant prospect of a general release in a hundred years.\u2014If the\nintention is, to bring about that release within a period which, to the\nfiftieth part of the present generation, gives the hope of enjoying the\neffect of it, I agree, that by means of one million of additional taxes,\nand some financiering tricks, the whole debt may be liquidated within the\nspace of 40 or 50 years; and then, that part of the present generation\nwhich may exist at that _most gracious_ period, will, perhaps, bless the\nhand by which it shall have been relieved. But would that same hand be,\ntill then, entitled to the like blessings from the unfortunate who should\nbe reimbursed, and from those at whose expence this operation would be\neffected?\n\nA first difficulty attending the objects under examination, is, that on\nevery head requiring an explanation, a multitude of questions occur,\nwhich must be previously discussed; yet, with the utmost candour I\nconfess, that there is not one among them which is not above the extent\nof my abilities. I shall therefore offer my thoughts on the subject with\nall that diffidence which results from such a consciousness. Partly by\nchance, partly from some other circumstance, as little glorious almost,\nor as little humiliating, I have been so often in the right, and so often\nin the wrong, that I should not be now more surprised at the one than\nproud of the other.\n\nAnother inconvenience is, that a picture, which, in its _ensemble_,\nmight hold out, through a thousand incorrections and as many essential\ndefects, a grand subject which, to become generally interesting, seems\nto wait only for the pencil of a skilful artist, viewed, unfortunately,\nby pieces, (and indeed it cannot be viewed otherwise,) presents at each\ntime, nothing but a singularity, an oddity, which will cease to be so\nonly when brought near to another; and this last, nevertheless, will\nrequire the same indulgence in order to its being rightly understood.\nThe picture which I have presumed to take in hand is, I think, nearly\nof this kind. My wish, and a bold one it is, would be, that no judgement\nbe pronounced on any of the particular parts, till they have been seen\nall together; for there are but few of them which, till another has been\nexamined, is not liable to very just objections: and under each head I\nhave answered to those only which it was essential to refute, that the\nreader might be able to go through the whole of the exhibition, which,\nhad the plan of it been presented in the first page, might have subjected\nthe book to be committed to the flames without mercy, and, indeed,\nwithout much apparent injustice.\n\nI now resume my subject, after a digression that may be looked upon as a\npreface, which the reader may perhaps think might have been spared.\n\nIn the age we live in, to justify a necessary impost, by the pretence\nof paying off the debt, would be, of all state man\u0153uvres, the most\nunpardonable. To lay heavy burdens on the people now, so as to liberate\nthem in the space of a century, is, independent of a great many\nmore improbabilities, to suppose, in the plan of administration, an\nimmutability which it cannot give itself, and which does not, nor ever\ncan exist. To leave the individuals of a nation in possession of all,\nthat it is not indispensable to take away from them, in order that, with\nwhat they have left, they may acquire that which it will be perhaps\nnecessary to deprive them of, is a principle, the absurdity of which\nit would be no easy matter to evince; but, to crush them under such an\nadditional weight of taxes as would be necessary to exonerate them forty\nor fifty years hence, would be, in my opinion, attempting a measure, some\nof the consequences of which have no doubt escaped the attention of the\nproposers.\n\nWhat may be the immediate effect of a considerable reimbursement, which\neven solely depends on the produce of taxation, and by no means of a\nreal increase of specie in the nation? It consists in refunding to the\nlenders a sum which must cease to be useful to them, till it is replaced\nsomewhere else; and obliging them to vest it, without loss of time, on\nthat portion of the debt which is not yet acquitted.\u2014But this privileged\nportion, which, previous to the reimbursement, was supposed only worth\n80, and produced four, (it may be observed that, in the numbers, which\nI fix upon, I only look for terms to explain my meaning) will be worth\n90, and presently 100, yet will not bring in more than _four_. It may\nbe answered, the stocks rise, public credit increases.\u2014We are not yet\ncome to this point; but the fortune of the repaid stockholders, which\ndoes not consist in a nominal capital, but in the revenue it produces,\nwill therefore, in fact, suffer a diminution of one whole fifth. What\nwill then become of that fifth of the taxed objects consumed by them, and\nwhich they can no longer purchase?\u2014It will, in my opinion, be necessary\neither to put a stop to the manufacturing of that fifth, and throw so\nmany hands out of employment, or else lower the prices, yet continue to\nlevy the tax, and then the manufacturer will complain of the burden; or,\nin fine, this fifth, now useless to the nation, must be exported, and\nthis adds to the first inconvenience resulting from the tax imposed for\nthe reimbursement: for, after all, if taxation operates in the manner\nit appears at first sight to do, that is, if it diminishes the means\nof consumption, then, by laying 1,000,000 of taxes appropriated to the\nliquidation of the debt, you have diminished your home-consumption, it\nmatters not of what articles; you have diminished it, and still more\nso by the incapacity, to which the creditors paid off are reduced, of\nconsuming that which they did consume previous to the reimbursement.\nYour exportation, it may be said, is by so much more increased, and\nenriched.\u2014Granted;\u2014but at whose expence? Who is to profit by it? In\nwhat manner are the returns to be made?\u2e3aWhen foreign trade augments\nin proportion to the increase of the produce and home-consumption, it\nis easily conceived, that if the money imported does not exceed the\nproportion necessary to answer that double increase, the progression\nbeing equal every way, each article (money among the rest) will keep up\nto its value; but if the number of representatives is increased without\nany addition being made to the objects represented, is not the price of\nrepresentation thereby diminished? Or, in other words, if you add to the\nreal stock of money in the nation, at the expence of part of your own\nconsumption, (which is the object in question) will not the price of the\nother parts of that same consumption rise in spite of you?\n\nBesides, by diminishing, in any quantity whatever, the general mass of\nhome-consumption, (and in the present supposition you may well think\nthat it has decreased, both by the tax imposed and the reimbursement\nmade) have the sums appropriated to that part of the consumption,\nannihilated by you, been withdrawn from the circulation? If not, then\nby adding thereto the increase of that balance in your favour, which\nyou pretend to receive from abroad, by what means can you prevent a\ngeneral rise in the prices, in proportion, not only to the quantity of\nthat fatal money imported, but also to that cash, which ought to have\nbeen buried under ground, that it might, at least, only prove useless,\nafter the home-consumption has undergone the diminution occasioned by the\nreimbursement and taxes? This is not all; the unfortunate creditors who\nhave been paid off, already reduced from five parts of what they enjoyed,\nto four only, will certainly, soon after you shall have put the said\nbalance into circulation, become unable, with the _four_ that remain,\nto purchase more articles than they could have procured with _three_,\nprevious to the tax and reimbursement.\n\nWill you pretend to say, that this money does not circulate within\nthe nation? that it becomes the source of a new trade? and that the\nexporters, instead of over-loading _England_ with that specie, send or\ncarry abroad the value thereof from _Spain_ into _France_, _Germany_, and\n_Russia_?\u2014that is to say, after having reduced the home-consumption, the\nexporters, who, rightly enough, are not willing to lose, will contribute\nto extend the internal consumption of _Spain_, _France_, _Germany_\nand _Russia_, and of course _the ways and means_ of these different\nnations, as well as the produce of their taxes, in the same proportion as\nthose objects have decreased amongst you.\u2014Could this seriously be your\nintention?\n\nBut if it clearly appear, that the execution of the refunding plan would\nprove equally pernicious in its immediate tendency, both to the creditors\nwho would be compelled to accept of it, and those at whose expence it\nmust be effected, what then might be the case, if the interest of that\ndebt, which ingrosses so much the public attention, being paid by _all_,\nwere, in fact, paid by _no one_, but for so long a time as nature,\nassisted by all the calculations of individuals, may require to correct\nthe errors of those upon a larger scale, _made by administration, when\nadministration is capable of making any_.\n\n\n\n\n_In what manner the Interest of the National Debt will be probably paid\noff._\n\n\nIt is the most generally received and best respected opinion, that taxes\nshould in preference be laid on the articles of luxury. There is not a\nman possessed of the least feeling and honesty, who does not approve\nof this maxim, and whose wish has not often been that the wealthy only\nshould pay the taxes. Canting enthusiasts further add, that the expence\nand luxury of the rich, prove the ruin of the nation. Be it so. But when\nthe question is, to define what is luxury, in order to subject it to\na tax, every individual exclaims, that it begins precisely with those\narticles which the mediocrity of his means, places above his reach.\nInstead of laying a tax on beer, would it not be better to increase that\non hackney-coaches? says a porter who is stopped at a crossing, by one\nof the above vehicles; whilst the supposed idler who sits in the coach,\nand pays for it, exclaims, at the sight of a gilt carriage, that crosses\nand stops his way: What! 500_l._ laid out on a single article of luxury!\nWould it not be better to tax the owner by so much, and apply the produce\nto the maintenance of fifty poor objects during six months? But, my dear\nSir, the manufacturing of this very carriage has maintained a far greater\nnumber. If you begin with the man who extracted from the mine, that gold,\nwhich, with indignation, you see glittering on the wheels; if it is not\nbeneath you to notice the child employed in driving away the flies that\nmight have hurt the gloss of the varnish when first laid on; and if\nyou end your list only with those who, instead of horses, dragged the\ncarriage into the coach-house of that stately man, whose pomp gives you\nso much offence; would it have pleased you more if all those hands had\nbeen paid for doing nothing? The rich man alone, say you, ought to pay\nthe taxes: but it is impossible that they should be paid by others, \u201c_if\nit be true, that every man, destitute of a capital, can pay nothing but\nat the expence of the capitalist_.\u201d\n\nIt would be a difficult matter to trace out, with exactness, the\nprogress of the taxes; but it appears to me, that whatever be the mode\nof establishing them, there is not a subject who does not contribute his\nshare sooner or later, unless nature should annul the burden, even before\nthe clashing of private interests should have succeeded in settling the\ndivision upon equitable principles.\n\nThe downfall of _England_ was foretold at her very first loan. This\nprophecy did not destroy the means of funding, on a very solid basis,\nin the year 1762, that part of the national debt, till then unfunded.\nNow I would ask the man, whom I should know to be most intimately\npersuaded of the dreadful effect that must be produced by a debt of\n64,234,595_l._ incurred from 1754 to 1762, in addition to a still\nheavier one, contracted since the time when the total amount of the\nlanded revenue was rated at 32,000,000, and the value of the lands only\nat 320 millions, that is to say, at about double the value of the whole\nnational debt as it stands at present: I would ask that man, I say,\nwhether, between the years 1763 and 1775, he has been able to discover\nin any parts of _England_, one single symptom of decay, either in\nagriculture or commerce, any diminution of public or private enjoyments,\nor less insolence amongst the common people, by which one may surely\njudge of the alterations which may happen in their circumstances.\nThis general observation may suffice to make us look on the period of\n1775, as presenting a state of things, which, supposing it had been\nprolonged, could not have held out any alarming prospect. Every one\nworked or enjoyed, and every body was paid. All this, methinks, might\nhave continued on the same footing to the end of the world, without any\nalteration on the former or subsequent fortune of any one, such only\nexcepted, as industry, activity, imprudence, and foresight, must occasion\nin all countries where justice is blind, and has but one scale.\n\nI readily acknowledge, that at that period a grievous war broke out,\nwhich did not conclude till 60 millions, nominally 100, had been added\nto the old debt, or, to come more directly to the point, till the\nnation had been loaded, or, if you please, crushed under the enormous\nweight of three additional millions interest to be paid annually.\nBut in what manner will those three millions, so heavy, so dreadful,\naffect the interested parties? In my judgement, it will be the same\nwith this additional burden, as it has been with the six millions which\nthe said parties were wont to pay before the last war. It certainly\nmust have been felt at first by every body, except the trading part\nof the nation, whose first operation ever was to add to the price of\nthe taxed commodities, both the amount of the tax, and the benefit\nof the advance to the consumer. (AND THIS IS STRICTLY CONSONANT WITH\nJUSTICE.) Now these consumers are of two sorts, viz. the proprietor of\nlands, and the proprietor of money: the latter must also be considered\nunder a two-fold point of view, as a capitalist for himself, or as a\ndependant who receives the money from either of the two proprietors. The\nproprietor of money, from the nature of this instrument of trade, is a\nbeing merely passive; twenty shillings, which he is paid for interest,\ncan _currently_ enable him to purchase such articles only as _currently_\nsell for 20 shillings. If the taxes had increased, by one tenth, the\nprice of all the commodities which he used to consume before the war of\n1755, it is clear, therefore, that in 1763 he had lost one tenth of all\nhis _possible_ enjoyments: I say possible; for the monied man, I speak\nin general, saves enough, annually, to strike an advantageous balance\nagainst the inconveniences _inseparable_ from his capital; I mean that\nprogressive and unavoidable depreciation of money, so long as there will\nbe mines opened, and taxes to discharge. But he can effect it with the\ngreater ease, as his stock often returns 5 _per cent._ whilst the capital\nof the landed proprietor brings him in hardly four, and often less.\n\nThe _dependent_ proprietor of money had also his resource; he, by\ndegrees, obtained an increase of salary; (AND THIS IS STRICTLY CONSONANT\nWITH JUSTICE.)\n\nNeither was the landed proprietor without his resource: he gradually\nraised the price of his goods, and would have increased it to the level\nof the whole amount of the produce of industry; (AND THIS WOULD HAVE\nBEEN STRICTLY CONSONANT WITH JUSTICE.) But nature very often anticipates\nthe execution of that very equitable measure, by another operation which\nis as infallibly the consequence of peace, as taxes are the effect of\nwar, ever since the abolishing of personal service. The 10, 15, 20\nmillions, which government had borrowed during the war, were nothing more\nthan a part of the capitals which in happier times might have been laid\nout in the improvement of cultivation and industry. Peace brought them\nback to their destination; an increase in the quantity of the produce\nof lands was the consequence; and an equal increase in the demands of\nthe productions of industry, occasioned by the former, kept up the price\nof every thing, _by facilitating to the one, the means of purchasing\nwhat the other wanted to dispose of_, and by presenting an increase of\nresources to that increase of population, which as certainly results from\npeace and plenty, as mortality does from war and scarcity.\n\nI now return to the three millions interest brought upon this nation\nby the last war; and I demand, what reason can prevent similar effects\nresulting from similar causes?\n\nYet, in order to obtain a complete idea of the whole burden of this\n_formidable_ debt, we must suppose that the full amount of it was\ncontracted during the last war; and then we shall see how many millions\nof guineas it would really cost _England_ to pay off for ever the\ninterest of all her successes and miscarriages from the beginning of this\ncentury, if the 9 millions of taxes should be now established in order to\nsupply the interest of the debt of 238 millions.\n\nIt will appear hereafter, that 9 millions of taxes laid on the articles\nof consumption, would increase, by about 14 millions, the price or\nnominal value of the whole produce of industry, rated upon supposition\nat 56 millions. Now it seems to me equally unjust and impossible, that\nthe total amount of the produce of agriculture should not thereby be\nincreased in the like proportion: I beg to be allowed this supposition,\nuntil I assign my reasons for it, and bring proofs sufficiently positive\nto ascertain the fact.\n\nBe it supposed, then, that the collective revenue of land and industry do\namount to 112 millions, independent of the taxes.\n\nLet us equally suppose that 40 millions sterling, in cash and paper\ncurrency, would be necessary and sufficient for the circulation of the\nsaid 112 millions.\n\nFourteen millions, in taxes, and in the advanced prices which must\nfollow, are one eighth of 112 millions revenue, which, by the necessary\nrise in the price of every thing, is carried to 126 millions. Now, 5\nmillions in cash and paper currency, are likewise one eighth part of the\nsupposed 40 millions necessary for home circulation.\u2014It would then cost\n_England_ only 5 millions in cash and paper, once found, to secure for\never, and in the most permanent manner, the interest of a debt of 238\nmillions, the very idea of which shook the firm nerves of the _Walpoles_,\nthe _Humes_, and of the many experienced men, on whose authority it was\nno weakness to tremble, before investigating a matter, which nobody, in\nmy judgement, had hitherto attempted to examine.\n\nAll the operations of Nature are slow, gradual, imperceptible; and how is\nit possible to trace her out in her progress, when, in the measures which\nlead her to the general good, she has recourse only to that multitude of\nprivate interests which seemingly tend to destroy it? Yet, in order that\nwe may form some idea of her operations in the point in question, let us\nexecute, in an instant, that which she would effect in half a century,\nif it were possible within that space of time to incur a debt of 420\nmillions, without any augmentation or decrease taking place in the landed\nrevenue.\n\n\n_First Hypothesis._\n\nLet us suppose, that, instead of appropriating the capitals that have\ndisappeared, either to undertakings relative to agriculture and industry,\n(which would have trebled the real revenue,) or to those wars, either\nsuccessful or grievous, that have left behind them only a frivolous or\nbitter recollection\u2014let us suppose, I say, that Government should have,\ntill this day, thought of nothing but making public establishments,\nand that every contributor to the public expence, being permitted at\nlast to live up to the full rate of his means, should find the fruit of\nhis former privations, in a multitude of monuments, such as the most\nluxuriant fancy can conceive, from the wisest disposal of the capitals,\nand of the time necessary to incur a national debt, the interest of\nwhich, added to the increase resulting from the taxes, should amount\nto 32 millions, upon an aggregate revenue of 64 millions, in which\nagriculture and industry should have an equal share. Such, nearly, was\nthe state of the nation, under _William_ and _Mary_, as we have already\nobserved.\n\nThe tax laid on the produce of industry would double the 32 millions:\nthis is just; nor can it be doubted; for there is not a manufacturer,\nwhose goods or produce have just been taxed, but will acknowledge this\ntruth. Besides, the _British_ Parliament avows it. What remains now,\nis to convince the landed proprietors, that by doubling also their\n32 millions revenue, they injure no one whatever. It is needless to\nprove, that if they act otherwise, if they be only passive when the\nmanufacturers are so justly active, they must be reduced to plough those\nlands that acknowledge them for their lords.\n\nPrevious to the tax, the 32 millions landed revenue, used to cost,\nannually, to the landlord and farmer, 9 or 10 millions, paid to the\ncultivators, and laid out in other expences. Such is the rate; nearly one\nthird of the revenue, (See _A. Young_\u2019s Political Arithmetic.) Before the\ntax, industry must have laid out amongst the handicraftsmen, nine or ten\nof her 32 millions.\n\nBy doubling, therefore, the price of labour in agriculture and industry,\nthe labouring people of both, will, under the numbers 18 or 20, have what\nthey had before under those of 9 or 10; and these two great engines of\nnational wealth will no ways be clogged.\n\nAs for the two _capitalists_ in land and industry, it is clear that each\nof them will have exactly the faculty of preparing, buying, selling,\nconsuming, and saving, under the denomination of 30, 40, 60, &c. all that\nthey could prepare, buy, sell, consume, and save, under that of 15, 20,\n30, &c.\n\nBefore we attend to the lender, let us advert to the State; and let it be\nobserved, that _in the case where 20 millions of cash and paper currency\nwould have sufficed for the circulation and national transactions of all\nkinds, at a time when both revenues amounted to 64 millions, it is enough\nto find out 20 millions more, whenever, by the effect of taxation, those\nsaid revenues are raised from 64 to 128 millions; and from the instant\nthat those 20 millions in cash and paper currency are obtained, you may\nflatter yourselves to have established, ~funded~ most firmly and for\never, the interest of a national debt of 420 millions, the interest of\nwhich, would at 5 per cent. amount to 21 millions_.\n\nIt is not yet time to examine what influence so considerable a rise, in\nthe price of every thing, might have upon the foreign trade; but let\nus turn our thoughts to the interest of the stockholder, who has so\ngenerously lent his money. It will be said, that he is evidently injured:\n_the interest due to him on account of his loan, was equal to two-thirds\nof the landed revenue: the land is mortgaged to the creditors of the\nstate: two-thirds of the neat revenue belong therefore in fact to the\nlender. A few years more, employed in erecting useful buildings, bridges,\ncauseways, &c. the whole landed revenue must have been absorbed, and the\nlender have entered into possession._\n\nSuch is nearly the result of Mr. _Hume_\u2019s reasoning on this pretended\n_mania_ of supplying the wants of the State, by mortgaging its revenue.\nLet me be permitted to urge a few words in answer, on behalf of the\nlanded proprietor.\n\nWhatever use the sums borrowed are put to by government, in this respect\nthe nation and the lender stand nearly in the same predicament as two\nindividuals who should have set up an undertaking at a joint expence:\nwhen it is completed, each of them first takes back his capital, before\nthey share the profits. In point of national enterprises, is war the\nobject? The profit is existence and glory, if the war has proved\nsuccessful. Are public establishments in prospect? Then the lender shares\nin their utility and comfort. Has the employing of the capital been\nproductive neither of glory, nor public establishments? In a word, is\nthe State reduced to its primary and bare existence? The capital lent\nwill not, at least, be lost to the lender, _if administration think fit\nto observe how little it costs to be just_; and the lender, on his part,\nwill reflect, that he should not have been a greater gainer, had he\nburied his treasure during the time of national distress and that, had he\nlent it to individuals, he might have lost it entirely.\n\nWhat I have just said, will, I think, suffice to refute the extravagant\npretensions which Mr. _Hume_ is pleased to suppose in the lender. What I\nshall add, will also be sufficient, I hope, to quiet the scrupulous minds\nof those who might entertain some doubts on the injustice of despoiling\nthe landed proprietor; I mean, the injustice of any kind of spoliation,\nbut that which may be the consequence of his own extravagance.\n\nThat man who gives up his land for the annual quit-rent of a quarter\nof wheat, and two shillings when the wheat was at four shillings only,\nsupposed he had entitled himself and his heirs to an income of a quarter\nand a half of wheat; yet his representatives enjoy, at this day, only one\nquarter, and the 18th or 20th part of another.\u2014Will these insist, that\nthe meaning of the landlord having been to secure, and that of the tenant\nto grant, such a portion of the landed revenue, as might be at all times\nequal to a quarter and a half of wheat, it is unjust to act in direct\nopposition to the intention of the contracting parties? This objection\nwould appear very forcible, and yet would go no further than to prove,\nthat, when a proprietor gives up his land for an annual consideration, he\nought to stipulate that it should be paid in kind, if he means to keep up\nto the same income; if not, the landlord must be referred to the terms of\nhis contract.\n\nThe state-creditor stands in a far more disagreeable predicament; he\ncannot even suppose, on his part, an intention hostile to the general\ngood. Whoever lends to the State, knows that the latter cannot pay the\ninterest it submits to, but by taxes, which, in the long-run, affect\nevery thing alike; and that one must cease to be a consumer, if he would\nforbear coming in for his share. Now, whilst the exigency of the State\nrequires fresh loans, and course additional taxes, whoever advances of\nthe stock, the interest of which is paid by means of those very taxes,\ncannot entertain any hopes of avoiding their effect, unless it be for a\nshort period, which depends entirely on the adopted scheme of finance.\nSome of these schemes extend, others shorten the round such taxes must\ngo through, before the burden falls equally on every shoulder, _and\nbecomes null by its universality_. I say _null_, all injustice set aside,\nwhich is inseparable from some sorts of taxes, of which I shall speak\nhereafter; but, I add, _strictly null_, even in regard to the lender,\nalthough the price of every article be raised, whilst his revenue alone\ncontinues on the same standard. And I ground my opinion on the following\nreason, which appears to me unanswerable: The difference between the\ninterest of money, and that of landed property, is always a sufficient\nindemnity to the monied man for the rise, occasioned by the taxes,\non the prices of the produce of land and industry; but _nothing can\ncompensate the landed proprietor for that pretended increase of wealth\ncalled Money, or that supposed poverty known by the name of Taxes, but\na proportionable increase in the price of his goods_[3]. A word more\non the lender. One may take the part of that important individual, who\naccumulates those savings by which the State is to profit. It is allowed,\nI say, to support such a man even against the State, when the State\nattempts to reduce him by an useless reimbursement, by an _unnatural_\noperation; but he should be assigned his real rank in the State, that he\nmay not complain of the _natural_ reductions. In this case, I think, we\nshould be more just, more humane, and more equitable, than Mr. _Hume_,\nwhen, in the continuation of the scheme of national loans, he offers to\nthe posterity of the present owners of landed estates, no other prospect\nthan that of serving, as coachmen, the descendents of their footmen,\nand no other means of averting the prophecy\u2014but _a bankruptcy_. (_Vide_\n_Hume\u2019s Public Credit_, Essay IX.)\n\n\n\n\n_Reflections on the two foregoing Articles._\n\n\nIf it were very true, though upon the first blush rather strange, that\nafter an operation so simple as that of increasing the price of the whole\nmass of commodities, or rather suffering it _naturally to increase_, in\nproportion as the taxes and the effects produced by them enhance the\nprice of all the products of industry, which are to bear those taxes\u2014were\nit true, I say, that after so plain, so simple an operation, it would\nsuffice, in order to secure for ever, in the most efficacious manner, the\npayment of the interest on any given national debt whatever, to find,\n_once for all_, in cash and paper, a sum which would exactly be, to the\nmass of the specie and paper already in circulation, as the interest of\nthe debt, and the reactions of which I shall speak in the sequel, are\nto the mass of the two revenues\u2014were it equally true, that those who\nare to be paid that interest, should, _after these two previous data_,\nhave nothing in the world to dread but the reimbursement of a principal,\nthe interest of which should appear so oddly secured, it would then be\nimpossible not to confess, that _England_ has hitherto been a prey to\ngreat uneasiness, with very little foundation.\n\nIt would then be necessary to conclude, that all other nations were\ngreatly in the wrong to think that _England_ had any reason to be alarmed.\n\nIt must, in this case also, be acknowledged, that _France_, in 1720,\nvery unreasonably cut asunder the _Gordian_ knot of her difficulties, by\ndeclaring in substance that she owed no longer 15 millions _Tournois_ of\nthe debts which she had contracted; since, without so barbarously cutting\nthe knot, and thereby effecting the ruin of thousands of wretched beings,\nshe would have secured their fortune by imposing without mercy, or rather\nwith judgement, a tax of 75 millions on all the produce of industry,\nwhich this tax would not have raised by one twentieth part; whilst an\n_Arr\u00eat_ from the council, permitting _then_ the exportation of grain,\nwhich was not allowed till 50 years after, would have proved more than\nsufficient to enhance, as it must have done, the price of commodities,\nin order to make amends to the landed proprietors for the increase which\nthey would have found in the products of industry.\n\nAbove all, it would be necessary to admit, that no minister, in any\ncountry, could, for the future, without a horrid perverseness, without a\nwant of judgement bordering upon insanity, propose, neither all together\nnor separately, expedients as shameful as they would prove useless;\nand that no individual could hereafter dread such measures, without\nbeing guilty of folly. What a security, then, for the Subject! what an\nadvantage to the State! what a _facility_ for Administration!\n\nUnder this point of view, the idea I start deserves to be examined; but I\nonce more entreat the reader not to pronounce finally upon it, until it\nhas undergone the full exposition which I propose to give it. Nor shall\nI think I have written in vain, if I succeed only in making it appear\nso feasible, as to induce some abler hand more deeply to investigate it.\nWhere is the man who would not wish to find it true? where is the man who\ncould have an interest in finding it otherwise? I confess, perhaps to my\nshame, that it has engrossed my attention for a long series of years; I\napply it to every thing, I square it with every thing; and the more I\nconsider it under all the suppositions which my fancy suggests, the more\nI compare these suppositions with all the facts which it is possible to\nascertain, and which seem to bear any relation to the subject, the more\nam I convinced, not only that the matter stands thus, but even that it is\nimpossible it should be otherwise.\n\nIn fact, if I return to _Great-Britain_\u2e3a\n\nIt would be absurd to suppose, that the taxes necessary to discharge the\ndebt incurred during the late war, exceed the twentieth part of the value\nof the products both of foreign and national industry, consumed within\nthe country. In this case, is it not impossible that the additional tax\nof a twentieth, in whatever manner it may be assessed on the mass of\nthose products, should not enhance, by a twentieth, the value of this\nvery mass? Let us call it a fifteenth; all kind of reaction included.\n\nIs it not impossible that this additional fifteenth on the price\nof the products of industry, be not followed, sooner or later, by\nan equal augmentation on the productions of the earth, unless the\nproprietors of land should submit to diminish, by one fifteenth, their\nown consumption,\u2014the home consumption (_the only one that secures the\nprosperity of the State_) and diminish it, in order to increase, by so\nmuch, the exportation, according to the ideas commonly adopted which\nwould be as contrary to the facts that I shall adduce hereafter, as it\nwould prove hostile to the interest of the State, to the interest of the\nproprietors, and would operate in direct opposition to the spirit of the\ntax, _which is certainly to produce its own amount, without taking the\ntrouble, every year, of going in search of it to ~Lisbon~_.\n\nIs it not impossible that the augmentation of one fifteenth, upon the\nprice of every produce in circulation, should require any thing above an\nadditional fifteenth, in the sums which had been hitherto sufficient for\n_brokerage_, and the transports of all kinds of property?\n\nIs it not impossible that this fifteenth, both in new specie and paper\ncurrency, once obtained, the interest of the latter part of the debt\nshould not be very firmly established, _funded_, without any one being\nthe worse for it, _if the price of labour increases like that of its\nproduce_?\n\nSuch, I repeat it, such will be, in the last analysis, the result of the\nunderworkings of nature; of nature, ever more slow, but ever more skilful\nin repairing evil than men are in creating it; of nature, who, as good at\nall times as the bread which she breaks to her children, fills up without\nintermission, incessantly levels, behind them, and unknown to them,\nwhilst they are amusing themselves or playing tricks upon each other, all\nthose little furrows which they imagine will be left to the care of their\nposterity.\n\nSome one, no doubt, will exclaim against this additional fifteenth upon\nthe prices of every commodity; an augmentation which I have represented\nas the only remaining trace of a war, which, for five years, attracted in\nboth hemispheres, the eyes of all whose brains were not heated by it. I\nshall grant therefore that it was necessary to add thereto,\n\nFirst, the trifling difference which must result from the impossibility\nof a thorough good understanding between the interested parties, together\nwith the intention, not very liberal, but natural enough to each of them,\nof gaining more than they can lose.\n\nSecondly, the difference, perhaps more sensible, which must follow the\nmethod so much boasted, of taxing in preference, those objects which are\nconsumed by the rich; as if it were possible to apply to any object, an\nextraordinary portion of a given revenue, without taking off that very\nportion from some other article, the consumption of _which is equally\nnecessary to the subsistence of artizans of another kind_.\n\nThirdly, and in fine, the far more considerable difference which must be\nproduced, _especially in England_, by another kind of taxation, of which\nI shall speak hereafter.\n\nNothing contributes so much to render a question undeterminable, as to\nperplex it with a multitude of accessaries, each of which would require\na separate dissertation; consequently, nothing can render the solution\neasier than to reduce it to the smallest compass. Some other person will,\nno doubt, do much better, what I can do only according to the extent\nof my abilities; nor did ever an author peruse his own work with more\npleasure than I shall read the production of any one who shall throw the\nlight of evidence where I can only form surmises. But if it be true,\nthat after a short space of time, without any other assistance than the\nnatural clashing of one interest with another, taxes, _judiciously laid_,\nare hurtful neither to individuals nor to the State,\u2014would it not be\nbetter to labour with care to _lay them judiciously_, than to think of a\nreimbursement, the only effect of which will be to diminish, for a short\ntime, amongst some individuals, the power of paying those very taxes?\n\nI beg permission to add a word more on this fatal reimbursement.\n\n\n\n\n_A Thought substituted to that of a Reimbursement._\n\n\nTo write in _England_, nay, to write with obstinacy against the plan of\na reimbursement, the necessity of which is acknowledged by the whole\nnation, who expect wonders from its execution; to write for the purpose\nof persuading that such a step would equally militate against the\ninterest of the State, and that of the subject; and especially to hazard\nsuch visionary ideas at the moment when _France_, so clear-sighted on\nher own interests, is herself busy in effecting a like reimbursement ...\nmust surely be the attempt of a man hired by the _French_, to excite,\nif possible, some ferment in those heads which are all wound up to\ncalculation; and to raise, during the little time the calculations will\nrequire, some plausible doubts, in order at least to delay the effect, of\nso salutary, so essential an operation; for, _France_ is so interested in\nthe ruin of _England_, that she ought to spare no means to stop her, were\nit but for an instant, at that point which it has not been possible to\nprevent her from attaining.\n\nOn the other hand, to write in _French_, and endeavour to introduce\ninto _France_, a pamphlet in which the author does not profess himself\nan admirer of a reimbursement, the possibility of which, now clearly\ndemonstrated, has excited there a general enthusiasm, a kind of rapture\nthe more excusable, as the most evident disorder in all parts of the\nfinances, during the space of 80 years, did not permit even the humane\nand sensible mind to form a single wish for that very measure of which\nthe execution is so certain, and the advantages pretended to be so\npositive.... It is suing with impudence for the good graces of a nation,\nto which I have, as it were, been turned over by the cession made to\nit of the country where my fortune lies: it is ridiculously flattering\nmyself that I shall justify by a _trait_ of unbridled licence, the title\nof _Englishman_, conferred on me by the treaty of peace.\n\nIt is certain, that more than once a man has been most secretly accused,\ntried with the greatest expedition, condemned without being heard, and\npunished with merciless severity, in consequence of charges much less\nspecious than the above; for I confess that there is a faint glimmer of\nplausibility in the heads of accusation which I have brought. But, in\nthe end, justice must be done; and, thank heaven, my present trial is on\nthe very first instance, brought to its last stage; the public shall be\nmy judge; they shall be put in possession of all the documents relating\nto the trial; and I presume to hope, that no one of those who shall\nbe able to bear the perusal of them, will suspect my sincerity when I\nprotest, that, without any other motive but that which has at all times\ninvariably guided me through life, I would burn this paper, if I could\nfind therein a single word that might be hurtful to _France_\u2014I would\nburn it, were I to find therein a single word that might be hurtful to\n_England_\u2014I would burn it, were I to find therein a single word that\nmight give offence to any individual of either of the two kingdoms.\u2014But\nI freely own, that my ambition would be far from receiving its full\ngratification, were this work to prove useful only to those two parts\nof the world, however brilliant the part they act therein.\u2014URBI ET\nORBI.\u2014_Shakespear_ says that the Warrior seeks \u201cthe bubble _glory_ in the\ncannon\u2019s mouth:\u201d a man who presumes to think, looks for it in the bottom\nof his inkstand: their hope is not always crowned with success; nay, very\noften, the one meets only death, and the other contempt. Yet there are\nsome lucky chances: sometimes the former saves his country, the latter is\nsometimes serviceable to all mankind.\n\nBe it as it may, I intreat the reader to observe, that the principles\nI lay down do not tend, by any means, to lessen the public credit,\nto spread any doubt on the faculties which _France_ and _England_\nhave of effecting the reimbursement which both these nations have in\ncontemplation; I maintain, on the contrary, with the simplicity of a\n_child_, that it is a _childish play_, for the one as well as for the\nother. I say, that the one who appears the most distressed of the two,\nand is the most taken up with her pretended distress, has only to take\nfrom the _pocket_ of one, what he will be very _averse to give_, and put\nit into the _hands_ of another, who will be equally _averse to receive_.\nI say, with respect to the nation, which _now_ acts the most brilliant\npart, that all she has to do, is to give, to those who do not ask for\nit, a sum of money which she receives, and has no occasion for; _to give\nit_, I say, for fear of being solicited, importuned, and teazed, to make\na bad use of it, or else be obliged to hoard it up, to the very great\ndetriment of circulation. I shall add now, that a business, which to\nme, does not appear a _childish_ one, but really that of a man, would\nbe to examine, whether the 40 or 50 millions of livres annuity, which\nare about to expire by degrees in _France_, and the million, or million\nand half sterling of taxes to be levied in _England_, over and above the\nsum necessary to pay the interest of the national debt, and other state\nexpenditures, will be better employed in the diminution of some private\nrevenue than in the increase of the general wealth in both States; that\nis to say, whether it is most advantageous to pay off the creditors, who,\nby such a reimbursement, will be compelled to place at 4 and at 3, what\nbrought them in 5 and 4 _per cent._ than to lay out the money, for the\npurpose of increasing, perhaps by one fourth, the products of agriculture\nand industry, by a faithful and judicious repartition of those sums upon\nthe cultivation of some millions of acres, which now yield nothing but\nbrambles, or yield only the half of what they ought to produce.\u2014How many\nof this description are to be found both in _England_ and _France_!\u2e3aThis\nis not all: how many kinds of taxes, the effects of which have not been\nsufficiently searched into! How many more, whose pernicious consequences\nare fully known! How many more, the levying of which can be justified\nonly by reason of their produce being wanted, or by _the supposed_\nimpossibility of a commutation!\u2014Ought the State to reimburse, before\nthose have been scrutinized, these repealed, and all commuted which shall\nappear evidently to militate against sound principles?\n\nThe great art does not consist in finding, at pleasure, one million\nsterling more in _France_ as well as in _England_, or _vice vers\u00e2_.\nHeavens! what kind of minister would that man be, whose genius could\nnot discover, in either kingdom, in the multitude of objects truly\nsusceptible of taxation, a number of articles capable of furnishing that\nmillion annually, without injuring the general consumption, beyond the\nfirst year at the worst? The only difference which, in this respect, I\nmight point out between the two nations, is, that in _France_ the impost\nwould be registered, and paid after the usual remonstrances; and that in\n_England_, were the tax to have been devised, even by Supreme Wisdom,\non the actual system, all those who might think themselves directly or\nindirectly interested in the operation of the tax, would not fail to\nclamour as loud as possible, and not without reason; for, after all, if\nthe objects taxed, are equitably taxed, and in a due proportion with\nall the rest, why, out of 160 objects and upwards, already charged\nwith equity, should _ten_ be picked out to be overloaded with a new\nburden?\u2014Has at least a rotation been established for the future?\u2014On\nwhat principles? Or does it evidently appear that there can be no fixed\none adopted on so important a matter?\u2014If a tax is offered to be laid on\nsuch articles as have paid none hitherto, then _Opposition_ stands on\nfirmer ground; for, are not those objects, by their nature, evidently\nas sacred as the ark of the Lord? Did ever the least scrupulous, the\nboldest Minister of the finances, dare, to this day, to lay his hand upon\nit?\u2014Would he have respected it, if he had not trembled for his head;\nthat is, in plain _English_, for his place? For, thank Heaven, there\nis no necessity, now, for the _English_ to be more hot-headed than any\nother nation in _Europe_. It is generally acknowledged among themselves,\nwith true _English sang-froid_, that, on the part of those champions\nof patriotism, who, according to the interest of the day, charge each\nother by turns with selling the people, and betraying the _SACRED\nconstitution_, all terminates now in the most exact change of admirable\nsarcasms, and exquisite railleries. The pleasure of being a Minister\nbecause _the minister alone can do what is good_, and the concern at not\nbeing a Minister, _because the minister alone can do what is good_, are\nnow productive of nothing more in _England_; and the People, as well\nas the King, are not worse served for it, nor are they worse informed:\nwitness the speeches on both sides.\n\nAmongst the questions which I have mentioned, and many others always\nappropriated to the subject, there are some sufficiently weighty to\npuzzle, in _England_ as well as in _France_, the respondent who should\nbe obliged, before a tax is laid, to answer them in a _satisfactory_\nmanner. Luckily, as I have already mentioned, in _France_, thanks\nto the monarchical constitution, the King _commands_, the Parliament\nremonstrates, registers, and the People pay: and, as is known to all\nthe world, thanks to the free constitution of _England_, there the King\n_demands_, the parliament debates, grants, and the People pay. With that\nfacility which exists every where, of doing what is not palpably absurd,\nI think it might be possible now, without bringing credit or authority\nin question, to renounce the little vanity of devising a productive\ntax; and that a man of common abilities ought to confine himself to the\nestablishing or maintaining order and clearness in the accounts, to\nthe diminution of expences in collecting the revenues, and to fidelity\nin the use of them.\u2014But the true, the unacquired glory to be obtained\nby a financier, would be, I think, to hit upon a simple scheme, the\napplication of which might be obvious in all cases, a scheme productive\nof no fruitless evil, permitting all possible good, and which might, by\ndegrees, be substituted to those vague taxations, to those _taxations_\nfounded on false principles, to those wild notions, which, by adding\n_five_ to an article not worth _three_, raise nevertheless that object\nto _eight_, and leave the trader at liberty to sell that for _fifteen_,\nwhich he sold formerly at _four_. It is true that, on the first exigency\nof the State, they pretend to remedy the abuse by an additional tax\ncalled _licence_, or by any other name which answers the same purpose,\nand compels the peculator to refund part of his extortion. But what does\nthis licence come to, after all?\u2014_To sell to a man the right of ransoming\nmore severely the public, after having previously furnished him with the\nmeans and pretence for doing it._\n\nNo one doubts, in _England_, but that the system of _French_ taxation\nis a very bad one; nothing so self-evident as the reasons adduced in\nproof; every thinking man in _France_ approves of those reasons:\u2014but\ndoes it clearly appear, that in _England_ some parts of that system are\nnot adopted?\u2014Is it not true, on the contrary, that it has prevailed,\nfor a long time, in one point truly essential, in regard to which they\nhave but diminished its inconveniencies, without thinking perhaps of the\ninjustice, which is as inseparable from it, as it is from those wherein\nit appears more evidently?\u2014The advantage of taxing the consumption\nis generally acknowledged; it is as generally believed that the way\nof bringing this system to perfection is by taxing, above all, _the\nconsumption of the rich_:\u2014yet, were it to happen that the poor should\nbe more injured, and that for a longer time, by a natural effect of the\nvery operation devised for their release, than he could be aggrieved if\nnothing should escape the tax....\n\nI shall venture to throw out some thoughts on these different objects,\nafter I have examined whether the necessity of a balance of trade,\nconstantly favourable, be not as doubtful as that of a reimbursement,\nand a bankruptcy; and whether that balance is really such as many people\nimagine it.\n\n\n\n\n_General Balance of Trade in ~England~._\n\n\nWhen the proprietor of a considerable sum in the _English_ funds examines\nSir _Charles Whitworth_\u2019s truly valuable work, _State of the Trade of\nGreat-Britain_; he thanks his stars, and says, \u201cI have nothing to fear\nwhilst the balance of trade continues in favour of this kingdom; but\nthe moment it shall turn against her, recourse must inevitably be had\nto the expedient so long postponed: the application of the _sponge_ is\ninevitable.\u201d\u2014\n\nI have perhaps already said enough to animate the greater part of those,\nwho are concerned in the public funds of every enlightened nation,\nagainst every other fear but that of a reimbursement; but, as it may\nbe believed, with regard to the public funds in _England_, that I have\nreasoned on the supposition, generally admitted, of that balance in their\nfavour, of which the _English_ are so jealous, I would wish doubly to\nstrengthen the mind of the parties concerned, by proving to them that\ntheir fortune rests on a basis much more solid than that of a pretended\n_favour_, which the private interest of every merchant, vigilantly\nrepels, whilst the fancy of the body at large happily confines them to\nbelieve in the idol, and to invoke it.\n\nI am indebted to the details contained in Sir _Charles Whitworth_\u2019s work,\nfor the advantage of applying to real facts, many reflexions which I had\ndigested before I had read that work; but I was, till then, reasoning on\n_hypotheses_; I now reason on what so nearly approaches reality, that\nit is necessary to controvert my arguments, instead of consigning their\nfoundation to the system of chimeras.\n\nBy means of that valuable work, I see, from the year 1700 to 1775,\nand that in the greatest detail, strengthened by all the proofs that\nthe nature of the subject can admit of, a constant superiority of\nexports, which, in the space of 75 years, amounts to the enormous sum\nof 267,774,769_l._ (I have overlooked the fractions of each article.)\nThis is, in the total amount, much more than one half of the gold and\nsilver imported into _Europe_ from _America_, during the same lapse of\ntime; but, of this period of 75 years, 30 must be attended to, wherein\nthe superiority of _English_ exports comes up very nearly to five-sixths\nof the general importation of those two precious metals, _which were to\nmake good so many other balances_. We should also observe, amongst those\nyears, a most flourishing one, wherein that _English favour_ absorbs,\nas it were, all the silver imported into _Europe_; and five other years\nstill more wonderful, where it surpasses that general importation by\n10, 12, and even 1,300,000_l._; for, in 1750 the general exportation\nof _English_ goods exceeded the importation of foreign produce, by\n7,359,964_l._ and yet all that product of the _mines_, belonging to\n_Spain_ and _Portugal_, is estimated only at 6,000,000_l._ sterling _per\nannum_.\n\nI shall suppose, for a moment, that, during the space of time I have just\nmentioned, the balance of trade did, in reality, produce to _England_ an\nimportation of money, to the amount of 267,774,769_l._ (for the reports\nof the Custom-House, as stated by Sir _Charles Whitworth_, brought in\nas a proof of that pretended, uninterrupted balance, in _favour_ of the\nnation, mean what I have said, or mean nothing at all, in regard to this\nmatter; they do not prove one penny if they do not prove the whole sum).\nIt is true that, according to the same reports, we must deduct for the\nmoney exported from _England_, during the course of those 75 years, about\n105 millions, by which the nation at least got rid of a surplus which\nwould have strangely disparaged the price of that which was preserved in\nthe country: but is it very certain that the 162,774,969_l._ the precious\n_nett_ of the pretended balance, was actually preserved? This appears to\nme impossible, for the following reasons, which may perhaps furnish us\nwith the means of knowing, precisely enough, in what the true balance\nconsists.\n\nSince the beginning of this century, the real and nominal value of\nthe revenue in the other parts of _Europe_, has doubled, as well as\nin _England_. Now this augmentation, in the products and prices, has\nrequired, every where, a proportionable increase of the means of\ncirculation; and _Spain_ and _Portugal_ are nearly the only two sources\nfrom whence that increase of means could be procured.\n\nIn the supposition that the revenue of _England_ constitutes one tenth\nof that of _Europe_ (it is a great deal), the other nations composing\nthat part of the world were of course obliged to endeavour to secure\nthe nine tenths of the money necessary for their own circulation; and\ntheir success in this is the less questionable, as, in case any one of\nthem should be short of money for the circulation of its property, the\n_English_ themselves would eagerly supply that part of the precious\nbalance, which it might want, because, in this case, the importation of\nmoney into such country would prove more profitable than an importation\nof fresh goods, whilst the old ones, carried there already, waited for\nmoney to circulate them. Hence it may be concluded, that the _English_\nnever had, or at least have not preserved, more than their tenth,\ntwelfth, or rather, more than their natural portion in that absolute mass\nof gold and silver necessary to the circulation.\n\nI shall now say, that it is not even probable that they have preserved\nthat _quota_, necessary every where else for the circulation of a\nrevenue similar to theirs, because _England_ is, of all known nations,\nthe one where the circulation of property of all kinds, requires a\nless quantity of real cash: the merciless severity of the laws against\ndebtors, the general credit which it encourages, the use and indubitable\nvalue of paper currency, which are derived equally from both, are three\nobjects which, in this respect, set _England_ far above _par_, in\ncomparison with all the other nations who have neglected to secure to\nthemselves the same advantages.\n\nMight we not further say, that _England_ evidently has not thought proper\nto get that _quota_, which she might have claimed, since one third, and\nperhaps half of her circulation, is effected by paper-money with more\ndispatch, with more facility, and with as much solidity as if it were\neffected by cash?\n\nIt will be asked, perhaps, if I pretend to infer at last, that the\nexportation has not been so considerable as it ought to be supposed from\nthe statements of Sir _Charles Whitworth_? I shall answer to this, as\nto many other queries; it may now be seen that a few millions more or\nless, are a matter of perfect indifference, in regard to my main object.\nThe exportation from _England_ is clearly prodigious; its immensity is\nproved by that of the tonnage of the shipping employed for her trade,\n775,624 tons in the years 1771, 1772, and 1773, (see _Chalmers_\u2019s\n_Estimate_); this point is established beyond all equivocation. What I\nrefuse therefore to the imagination of the trader, is solely what appears\nto me chimerical and useless in that favourable balance of money; and\nthis _I refuse_, because I cannot possibly but acknowledge, that every\ntrader has too much good sense to act against the general interest of\ntrade, when such operation must, at the same time, prove contrary to\nhis own interest. Nay, is much more than plain instinct wanted, not\nto import money which yields a very trifling benefit when there is no\ndemand for it, whilst one may take up foreign goods, on which there is\na certain gain of 10 or 12 _per cent._ because they are eagerly sought\nafter? and when, besides, the nation, on a certainty, will not finally\npay for them but with national goods, since she has no mines of her own?\nI must observe, indeed, that this very trader, guilty of such an act of\n_impatriotism_, of this national crime of importing merchandize instead\nof gold and silver, cries up, as loud as any other, _the necessity of\nstriking a favourable balance_; but private wisdom gets the better of\npublic folly; every one imports such goods as he is in hopes to sell\nto advantage, and leaves to his neighbour the care of importing that\n_favour_ on which no profit can be got.\n\nWhat is then the quantity of bullion really imported every year into\n_England_?\n\nIt is incontestably, in the first place, so much of it as is necessary to\nanswer the progressive increase of the prices and products, both of the\nland and industry; the bank-notes cannot suffice to that augmentation,\nbut in their ordinary proportion to the real specie in circulation;\nall supplement of bank-notes, which in the needful hour exceeds that\nproportion, must soon be replaced by real specie; on this exactness\nstand the credit of the Bank, and the vast advantage accruing therefrom\nto the public, and to the State; but from thence also results a greater\ninutility of accumulating money before it is wanted.\n\nIt is, in the second place, all the bullion necessary for the labouring\ngold and silver-smiths, from the first gold-smith in _London_ to the last\nplated-button maker at _Birmingham_.\n\nIt is, thirdly, all that importation which is required to make good\nthe _deficit_ occasioned by petty stock-jobbing, and the melting down\nof guineas, which no workman will ever scruple, when there will be a\nfew more pence to be got that way, than by the purchase of bullion, or\nas often as, having no bullion at hand, he shall find himself in the\nimmediate necessity of working.\n\nIt is, fourthly, all that which is wanted to replace the few guineas\ncarried away annually from _England_ by travellers, smugglers, or by\nmeans of some inferior transactions in trade, and which cannot always\nbe exactly balanced by the contraband trade carried on elsewhere by the\nnation.\n\nEver since the _English_ have acquired the immense landed revenue which\nthey possess in the _East-Indies_, it is probable they do not carry there\nso much money; yet some must be sent there. The above five articles are\nthe only ones I know of, which may render necessary an annual importation\nof money. The first of those articles is absolutely independent of the\ncaprice of any one; it is always subservient to the quantity of effects\nto be put into circulation, as well as to their price; and can at no\ntime deprive the other parts of _Europe_ of their share in the mines of\n_America_. The third and fourth are in a manner included in the first;\nnor can they, when viewed separately, be very considerable: The second\nalone is truly prodigious, but is likewise subservient to the demands\nof that very silver when wrought, that is to say, converted into some\narticles of luxury: But it is necessary to observe, in regard to this,\nthat great care is taken to find out purchasers for that metal thus\nimproved by the hands of the workman, not only in _England_, but wherever\npeople can possibly be found willing to take from her, that part of the\nprecious balance, which she had taken upon herself, only in hopes of\ngetting rid of it.\n\nThis I think is sufficient to demonstrate the impossibility of that\npretended _favourable balance_, amounting, in the space of 75 years, to\n162,774,769_l._ the existence of which many people imagine to be real,\nfrom the statements of Sir _Charles Whitworth_: for, if they would\nconfine themselves to say, that, in the course of 75 years, _England_\nhas profited in trade to the amount of 162,774,769_l_. I have proved\nmuch more, since I proved (p. 17 to 22) that all the benefits which have\naccrued, and might now be spent, form together a solid mass of clear and\npalpable savings; and that this mass would now be, without doubt, 332\nmillions, instead of 162, had the 180 millions, lent by the subjects to\ngovernment, and swallowed up by the war, been laid out in the improvement\nof lands and industry.\n\nAs to the inference that might be drawn from the apparent exportation of\n105 millions of money, during the same period, according to the above\nstatement, it is also necessary to make an observation on this matter.\n\nIn any grand mercantile operation, where prompt and certain remittances\nare required, be the motive of such operations what it may; if there goes\nout of _England_, we shall suppose, 400,000_l._ in bullion, this very\nsame bullion, after the bargain is struck and fulfilled, either in goods\nor in bills of exchange, comes back to _London_, to resume if necessary,\nthe same course three weeks afterwards: For the space of 40 years,\ntherefore, the same sum may an hundred times be placed in the catalogue\nof exports, and perfectly answer to a capital of 40 millions, the place\nof which it has really supplied: This is a well-known resource; nothing\nthen can be concluded in regard to the 105 millions of bullion exported,\naccording to Sir _Charles_, but, that there ever has been, and probably\never will be, in _England_ all the bullion necessary to answer the\nexigencies of the most unforeseen and extraordinary negociations of all\nkinds, and industry enough to recall in time, that bullion which had only\nbeen given as a pledge. It is like a jewel worth 100,000 crowns, which,\nfor the space of 20 years, is said to have passed ten times backwards\nand forwards from _Paris_ to _Amsterdam_, but finally remained at\n_Amsterdam_, by a reason contrary to that which keeps up the commercial\nshuttle between _England_ and _Holland_.\n\nIn order to come as close to the point as it is necessary, on a matter,\nbesides, of which it is equally useless and impossible to obtain an exact\nknowledge, here follow some facts, the essential results of which by no\nmeans depend on more or less exaggeration in the exposition either of the\nsale, or of the credit.\n\nThe period from 1764 to 1773, must be allowed to have been the most\nflourishing era of _Great Britain_. During those ten years the\nexportation of _English_ merchandises into _Spain_, has exceeded the\nimportations from _Spain_ into _England_, by 5,095,998_l._ In the same\nspace of time, the balance of trade between _England_ and _Portugal_ has\nbeen 3,274,133_l._ in favour of the former. The two _favours_ united,\namount all together to 8,370,131_l._; add thereto the _favourable\nbalances_ of _Madeira_, and the _Canary_ Islands, paid probably in\n_Spain_ and _Portugal_, amounting, in the same space of time, to\n516,863_l._\u2014the total presents us with the aggregate sum of 8,886,994_l._\nwhich, divided by 10 years, proves an annual balance, _in favour_ of\n_England_, of 888,699_l._ real money.\n\nThe light of probability now begins to dawn upon me: at least I here find\nmyself at the source of money; and, as I know, first, that _England_\nmust absolutely be provided with a certain quantity of it, whatever that\nquantity may be, for the five articles before mentioned:\n\nSecondly, That she exports, of her own goods, fifteen times as much as\nshe need to do for that purpose:\n\nThirdly, That gold and silver are to _Spain_ and _Portugal_, what wines\nare to _France_, silks to _Piedmont_, hemp and timber to _Russia_; and\nthat, in order to procure those different articles at the easiest rates,\nthey must be fetched from _France_, _Piedmont_, and _Russia_:\n\nFourthly and lastly, that _Spain_ and _Portugal_ stand exactly in the\nsame need of making away with the surplus of their gold and silver,\nas _England_ does of acquiring it, by getting rid of a surplus of her\nmanufactures: I cannot therefore entertain the least doubt, but that it\nis at _Cadiz_ and _Lisbon_ that _England_ procures all that gold and\nsilver which is indispensably wanted for the five operations spoken\nof; and I must positively conclude, that there she has taken the whole\nquantity which she had occasion for; but I as positively conclude,\nthat she took up only so much of it as was wanted, when I see that it\ndepended entirely upon her to take more, and that she has not done it:\nA decisive point, which I cannot by any means call in question, when I\nhave convinced myself, by Sir _Charles Whitworth_\u2019s statements, that\nthis sum of 888,699_l._ which _England_, if so disposed, might have\nprocured annually during the ten years above mentioned, is no more than\nthe balance of 1,785,826_l._ in goods exported there, one year with\nanother, during the same space of time:\u2014For, after all, why should not\n_England_ have taken _in money_ the amount of 897,157_l._ of _Spanish_\nand _Portuguese_ goods, taken by her ships in return, were it not that\nthe value of money, as that of all other kinds of merchandise, is always\ntyrannically fixed by the demand?\n\nIt seems, therefore, probable enough, that the money annually imported by\n_England_, during the period aforesaid, does not exceed the 888,698_l._\nof the balance which appears against _Spain_, _Portugal_, _Madeira_,\nand the _Canary_ Islands: But here follows a strong conjecture, that\nit is not so considerable as it appears by those accounts.\u2014It is\nan uncontroverted fact, that the article of exportation is always\nexaggerated more or less; the man who first bethought himself of this\nharmless cunning, fancied that his own importance would appear more\nconspicuous to the nation, by reason of the quantity of goods which he\nmight seem to export: this is now the secret of the play-house, every\nbody knows it; but this practice is in a manner become necessary: one\nmust unblushingly raise himself above his level, in order to be thought\nin his real place; the only way of deceiving in this respect, would be to\nspeak the truth; and, in this case, the deceit would fall on the deceiver\nhimself, and that just regard which the exporter has a right to claim,\nwould be lost to him: Add to this necessary artifice, which is no longer\na cheat, the usual mode adopted in regard to importation, the value of\nwhich is always a little under-rated, but only a little, because there\nmight be some inconvenience in cheating Government to excess. With these\ntrifling modifications, I think _England_ will be found not much above\nthe _par_ of her _quota_, in the gold and silver imported from _America_.\n\nNow, out of these 6 or 700,000_l._ in money, which I believe are really\nand annually imported into _England_, what quantity is sent to foreign\nmarkets,\u2014not, indeed, before its value is considerably advanced by\nthe workmanship?\u2014But, if this metal be so precious, why part with it\nwhen once acquired? Why not employ the workman upon objects, the price\nof which would have received a ten-fold increase by his labour? Why\nshould these continual prophanations of the sacred metal be permitted?\nWhy give encouragement to that kind of prostitution of gildings of all\nsorts, which daily consume such quantities of gold? It is said, that\nin _Birmingham_ alone, they consume 30,000_l._ worth _per annum_:\u2014And\nshall it be on a metal thus lavished away, shall it be on that pretended\nbalance, that _England_ will build her resources, and the security of her\ncreditors?\u2014In what consists, then, the wealth of the nation, that wealth\nwhich is truly independent of all circumstances, and which will ever be\nsuperior to the national wants?\n\nIt consists in any sum whatever, money and paper currency, which is\nrequired to keep in the utmost activity, 3,000,000 of cultivators,\n3,000,000 of tradesmen, and 3,000,000 of other consumers, as\nindispensable to realise the value of the objects by them consumed, as\nthe tradesman and cultivator are necessary to produce them:\u2014And if any\nquestion should arise on the number of inhabitants,\n\nIt consists in the number of men necessary to furnish annually exports to\nthe value of fifteen or sixteen millions:\u2014And if it should be urged that\nthis exportation is over-rated,\n\nIt consists in the number of men capable of making up that quantity of\nexports, which is annually required for a trading navy of 775,024 tons,\non the statement of which there cannot arise a single doubt.\n\nIt consists in a population necessary (which doth really exist, and could\nnot be dispensed with) to find, without any other inconvenience but a\nmomentary sensation, the 100,000 seamen of the royal navy, the 70,000\nnational soldiers, and the 3 or 400,000 artificers, and other persons\nemployed in every way, who, by the last war, were for some years taken\naway, from their daily and useful occupations, some monuments of which\nwould probably have been transmitted to posterity, in order to their\nbeing employed in all the accidental operations that were requisite to\ncarry on those destructive plans, which have left nothing but a sad\nremembrance behind: _A remembrance, nevertheless, of which the most\nallowable pride should allay the bitterness._\n\nIt consists also, perhaps, in that revolution, which must have been\neffected in the mind of every intelligent _Briton_, by the demonstration\ngrounded on experience, of the impossibility of doing beyond a few\nminutes, with a given number of men, more than that same number is\ncapable of effecting habitually, and without fatigue.\n\nIt consists in the impossibility of not doing, even to the end of ages,\nwith a given number of industrious men, all that which the same number\nhave executed during 80 years, not only without exhausting themselves,\nbut rather, on the contrary, still increasing their strength and wealth.\n\nIt consists, in fine, in the demonstration which will become daily more\npalpable, that labour alone is the source of that wealth; that the more\nthe sum of this labour shall augment, the greater will be the increase\nof riches; but that this same labour will not reach its last degree of\nactivity in _England_, till it is nearly in the same state in _Siberia_;\nand that there is no great harm in an _English_ mechanic creating a\ncultivator in _Siberia_, or even in _France_, provided a _Siberian_ or\n_French_ mechanic, create a cultivator or mechanic in _England_.\n\n\n\n\n_Reflexions on some private Balances of ~England~, both of the favourable\nand disadvantageous Kind._\n\n\nIn the small number of disadvantageous balances, the necessity of which\nis so grievous to _England_, I distinguish that with _Russia_, which,\nin the course of the ten years above mentioned, amounts upon an average\nto 825,212_l._ annually. This, in fact, is more than enough to swallow\nup the 6 or 700,000_l._ of the favourable balance, during the same\nperiod, against _Spain_ and _Portugal_, the only sources almost of the\nprecious metals; luckily the expence of _Russia_ in gold and silver is\nascertained, as it is every where else, first, by the quantity of coin\nin circulation, a quantity always proportioned to the price, as well as\nto the number of objects to be circulated; and, secondly, by the degree\nof ease, riches, and pomp, which the generality of private faculties can\nadmit of, in the articles of furniture, plate, and dress: The introducing\nof gold and silver, above the quantity necessary to answer those various\npurposes, would, as the case is every where else, prove entirely useless;\nfor it can hardly be imagined, that so wise a Princess as the Sovereign\nwho now holds the sceptre of _Russia_, should think of hoarding up,\nbefore her 20,000,000 of subjects be as rich, that is, _do produce and\nconsume as much as a similar population might produce and consume in\nFrance or in England_: Now, to hoard up would be the infallible means to\nprevent it. Let us now suppose, that the annual importation of bullion\nnecessary for the circulation in _Russia_, amounts to one half, or even\nto an equality of what is wanted by _England_ for the same object:\u2014It is\nprobable that _England_ contributes thereto no more than her proportion,\nas the other maritime States, who, like her, are obliged to provide\nthemselves in _Russia_; and, consequently, the disadvantageous balance of\n_England_ with _Russia_, can no more demonstrate that the former exports\nthere annually 825,212_l._ than the balance in her favour against\n_Flanders_, clearly proved by the accounts of Sir _Charles Whitworth_,\ncan demonstrate that the above province is by her stripped of 521,201_l._\nannually.\n\nA publication truly interesting, would be a work containing a particular\naccount of the trade of each country, were it only such as that which Sir\n_Charles Whitworth_ has given on _the trade of England_; but though such\na treasure is wanting, yet it appears to me, that to have a clear idea\nof such a work, would be sufficient to foresee what would be the result\nof it. All men are alike: one may therefore, without fear of deceit,\nsuppose in the merchants of every country, the same attention to swell\nup the list of articles which pay no duty, and which give a trader the\npetty consequence of a more considerable exportation; every where might\nbe found the same exactness, _in a contrary sense_, in regard to goods\nliable to an importation duty; consequently the balance struck at last\nwould be in favour of the nation whose accounts should be then inspected:\nbut deduct from all those favourable balances, that which might have been\nfarther declared on the articles which are duty-free; add to the total\nof the exports, what has been declared short of the true amount on the\nobjects which must pay; it would then be found that (the five articles\nexcepted) all is paid literally without having laid out any cash, and\nthat each nation is wisely reduced to the only real advantage of trade,\nthe _exchange of want against fancy, the exchange of one fancy for\nanother, or the exchange of one want against another want_.[4]\n\nIn fact, how can it be supposed, that a nation who should not sell to\none, or to six others, exactly as much as she has purchased from a\nseventh, should not be, a little sooner or a little later, compelled,\neither to give up a trade which she must support with real specie, or to\nsell that at home for _five_ in cash, which fetched ten before? Is it not\nevident, that a nation which should not purchase from one or six others,\nas much as she sells to a seventh, must, sooner or later, find herself\nin the necessity, either to hide her money under ground, or to lower its\nvalue, so far as to sell at home successively for 6, 8, 10, and 20, that\nwhich was sold before at 5? This would exactly have been the case with\n_Russia_, had the annual balance of 825,212_l._ been effectually paid to\nher in coin, either by _England_, or by those who stand on the debtor\nside with _England_, and had the former put it into circulation, instead\nof laying out the surplus of that balance in the purchase of goods from\nsix other countries, to whom the _English_ sold articles to a similar\namount: Now the _Russian_ trader does not in _Russia_ charge 20, for that\nwhich, 50 years ago, was sold there for 5: the value of money is not\ndebased there, though _Russia_ has annually a claim upon _England_ for a\nbalance of 825,212_l._ and, probably, demands not less considerable upon\nthe other maritime powers; _Russia_, therefore, has cautiously avoided\nreceiving those different balances in coin.\n\nBesides, money fetches but its price in _Flanders_, although, according\nto Sir _Charles_, that province is indebted to _England_ in a yearly\nbalance of 521,201_l._\u2014Nor is money worth above its price in _Germany_,\nthough the latter owes likewise to _England_ a balance of 924,709_l._\nannually.\u2014In _Ireland_ it goes for no more than its worth, though there\nis another balance due by that kingdom to _England_, to the yearly\namount of 770,916_l._\u2014Nor is it above its value in _France_, who owes to\n_England_ an annual balance of 108,073_l._\u2014Now, if money is every where\nnearly of the same value, we must conclude, that there does not exist\na nation which has not found in her annual importations of gold and\nsilver, either considered as money, or as materials for some articles of\nluxury, all that she stood in need of to keep up circulation, and provide\nfor that degree of luxury, which the _actual_ degree of her industry\n_requires, as much as it allows_; in this case the final balance, deemed\nunexact, that is, in _favour of England_, has, in fact, been kept\nperfectly even. Each has sold here or there, as much as he has purchased,\nand _vice vers\u00e2_; and the prejudice _England_ entertains on the necessity\nof a _favourable balance_, has not, in practice, dazzled the eyes of the\nmerchant who carried on her trade: He has rejected the gold tendered to\nhim, when his profit upon it would have been but trifling, with as much\njudgement as he has, with care, sought after such goods as could then\nyield him a greater benefit.\n\n\n\n\n_State of the Balance between ~England~ and ~Holland~._\n\n\nSir _Charles Whitworth_, in his _State of the English Trade_, rates the\nannual balance due by _Holland_ to _Great Britain_, at 1,372,258_l._\nupon an average of 10 years: This is the most considerable. There can\nbe no illusion, in regard to the effect this balance has upon the money\nin _England_; it is well known that it does not increase it; nay, it is\nthought that the debt due to _Holland_, lessens it annually, not only\nby the whole amount of the _favourable balance_ which would revert to\n_England_ were she not indebted to the _Dutch_, but of one million more,\nwhich must be found to pay them off.\n\nI have already said, and repeated, that in every circumstance where it\nis necessary to borrow or to displace a capital, it is better to borrow,\neven at 5 _per cent._ than to remove a capital which returns double\nthat sum; and that, on the other hand, it is more advantageous to lend\nany sum abroad upon good security at 5, or even at 3 _per cent._ than\nto lend the same sum at home, where it would yield only 2 _per cent._\nor to bury it in the abyss of a Bank, whence nothing returns. Now what\nproves that _Great Britain_ and _Holland_ are in this case with regard\nto each other, is, that _England_ seldom or never opens a loan, but what\nthe _Dutch_ take a share in. What do they give for the purchase? Nothing\nmore than the surplus of the ordinary profits arising from a trade, which\nthey cannot extend sufficiently to employ the whole amount of their\nsavings. And why has this part of the _English_ loan been given up to the\n_Dutch_ by the national capitalists? Because the latter could find in\ntheir own trade, susceptible of a farther extension, a way of employing\ntheir capitals to greater advantage, that is to say, of reaping a benefit\nsuperior to the interest offered by the loan: How can this be doubted,\nwhen we see that the loan falls into the hands of a small number of\nmerchants, who soon afterwards make over their debt? Would they transfer\nit to any one, were not the interest it brings in, interest secured by\nthe nation, inferior to the ordinary profits of their commerce?\n\nTherefore, if the balance due to the _Dutch_ is thought _burdensome_,\nonly in the supposition that it serves to pay _burdensome_ interests,\nit cannot be looked upon in the same light, when the matter rests upon\na debt, by which the borrower clears a benefit superior to the interest\nthat he has to pay.\u2014I shall present this question under another point of\nview.\n\nIn the war which was terminated by the treaty of _Paris_, the most\nconsiderable part of the debt contracted for its support, was acquired\nby the _Dutch_: Why so? Because the _English_, carrying on, without any\nopposition, an exclusive trade with every part of the world open to them\nalone, found therein the opportunity of employing their capitals to a\nfar greater advantage, than that held out by government in the interest\nof the loan. During the last war, on the contrary, the _English_, being\nmore narrowly circumscribed in regard to their commercial operations, by\na navy, the possibility of which they did not even suspect, much less\nits real existence, and being kept more circumspect by a new system\nwhich opened a free navigation to all the powers not involved in war,\nthought themselves happy to find, in the national loan, an employment for\nthat portion of their capitals, which, from circumstances, was become\nuseless. The interests of the last debt are then due and paid within,\nand by _Great Britain_; but will it be said, that _England_ would not\nbe so rich, were the 3 millions additional interest, with which she is\nburdened, due to _Holland_, and had the _English_, instead of employing\ntheir capitals, as they have done, in support of the last war, made use\nof them in the same profitable manner as in the year 1755? had that\nmoney, for instance, been laid out in the improvement of their waste\nlands in _Europe_, _whilst Dutch cash should have fought against French\nmoney, to determine how many European nations ought to be permitted to\ncarry to North America, the goods of the other parts of the globe_!\n\nAs to the full acquittal in money, _real_ and _effective_, of the\n2,000,000_l._ interest, due to _Holland_ for her previous loan, it is\nimprobable, impossible, and useless.\n\n_It is improbable_, because _Holland_, being already overstocked with\nmoney, and carefully intent on getting rid of her surplusage in this\nparticular, at the first opportunity of placing it with security, would\nstill lower the price of it at home, were she to increase its mass; and\nthat, on the contrary, whilst _Holland_ takes in goods instead of money,\nshe keeps up the interest of the one, by securing to herself a benefit\nupon the other.\n\n_It is impossible_, because _England_ importing bullion from _Spain_ and\n_Portugal_, to the amount only of one third, and being very cautious,\nas observed before, not to import more than _one third_ of what she\nowes to the _Dutch_, and this, not to pay them, but because this third\nanswers sufficiently to the five articles of which I have spoken\nbefore;\u2014_England_, then, cannot give to the _Dutch_ what she has not\nreceived from another, and which she has not of her own.\n\n_It is useless_, in fine, because all accounts whatever are balanced\nwith more ease, in the age we live in, by bills of exchange, than with\ncash, and because the claims of _Holland_ are more naturally paid off, by\nanother debt due to _Great Britain_, for the produce of her exports to\nsome other parts of _Europe_, from whence the _Dutch_ carefully avoid, as\nmuch as possible, to import any thing but merchandise.\n\nBut _would it not be better to owe nothing to foreign nations_? For to\nthis one point we ought to confine all the lamentations about _Dutch_\ncreditors.\n\nThe above question, so apparently simple, so readily to be resolved in\nthe affirmative, would grow perhaps more intricate, were it ushered in by\nsome previous queries, which might permit us to foresee the effect of the\nnational wish, when accomplished, if it could be obtained by the easiest\nanswer that could be given; for the case, no doubt, is not to examine,\nwhether it would not be better to have borrowed, without being obliged\nto return, than to pay an interest after the money has been borrowed. In\nthe state of things, the question alluded to, to be fair and within the\npale of common sense, must mean nothing more than this: _Would it not\nbe better, that the proprietors of the two millions interest, paid to a\nforeign nation, should make their residence in England?_ And in this case\nit leads us, by degrees, to the following query: _Would it not be better,\nif all and every man in the world, who has money to spare, should come to\nspend it in London?_ Then indeed _London_ would be a dear place to live\nin! And this is, methinks, the most dreaded effect arising from taxes.\n_O ye, whose covetousness knows no limits but the bounds of the earth!\ndo ye pretend to be the sole inhabitants thereof?_ Can ye draw off the\ncapitalists of a country, without completing its ruin? Can ye effect its\nruin, without losing both that portion which the produce of your soil\nsecures to you in the produce of that nation\u2019s industry, and the share\nwhich the produce of your industry has secured for you in those of her\nsoil?\n\nWhat then appears to me to be the result of this _fatal_ interest of\ntwo millions due annually to _Holland_?\u2014That the latter is essentially\ninterested, not in an increase of the power of _England_, who might\nmake a bad use of it; not in an increase of specie in _England_, which,\nby lowering its value, must compel her to return that of the _Dutch_,\nalready so much disparaged in their country; but to a further extension\nof the _English_ trade, or rather of the general commerce, which can\nalone, by advancing constantly, and every where, the quantity and price\nof the objects that are to circulate, increase in the same proportion the\nnecessity of the _instruments_ indispensable to every kind of circulation\nand undertaking, and keep up in every part, _for the interest of Spain\nand Portugal, as well as for that of Holland_, the value of the sign\nintended for a general representation, which _Holland_ in her proportion\nwill ever have in greater plenty than all other nations, thanks to the\nnarrow limits of her territories, and to the manners of her inhabitants,\nwhich, in all probability, are the consequence of that limitation.\n\n\n\n\n_Balance of ~France~ with ~England~._\n\n\nOf all the balances of _England_ summed up by Sir _Charles Whitworth_,\nthat which is most to be wondered at every where but in _Japan_ and\n_China_, where foreign trade is but poorly encouraged, is the balance\nbetween _England_ and _France_, these two nations being parted, as they\nare, only by a simple brook.\n\nThe wonder cannot but increase, if we consider with what eagerness those\ntwo countries are intent upon improving their trade.\n\nThe wonder will still increase, when it is observed, that the _French_\ncarry to the highest pitch their rage for _English_ modes, whilst the\n_English_ experience the same kind of frenzy for _French_ fashions.\n\nThe wonder must increase still further, when it is observed, that the\nsame nations, in possession of the most active and most intelligent\nindustry, are also possessed of all the cash necessary to give an\nadditional activity to that _industry_, which might be required to carry\non a branch of trade, as it were, at their door, but which is neglected,\nout of regard for old and absurd prejudices.\n\nStill must the wonder increase, if it is observed, that a first capital\nof 200,000_l._ laid out in that trade by the two nations, would occasion\nin both, more work in cultivation, as well as in the arts, than\n600,000_l._ which each of them might employ in a trade to _China_, if it\nwere possible to lay out such a sum upon it?\n\nThe wonder will be still greater, when we consider that, _by favouring,\nwith equal care, the imports and exports to and from one country into the\nother, the two nations would, without the least inconvenience, acquire\nthe means of increasing the revenue of their customs respectively,\naccording to their wants, by agreeing mutually upon a tarif, which would\nbe rated upon the average of those wants_; a tarif, which the rest\nof _Europe_ might adapt to its circumstances, if it were the general\nintention to increase, every where, the revenue of the State and the\nindustry of the people, in a like proportion.\n\nThis is certainly what the two nations might have compassed. That which\nfollows, is what they have done.\n\nIn the year 1699 the exports of _England_ to _France_ amounted to\n287,050_l._ and her imports from _France_ to 94,641_l_:\u2014\n\nIn 1773, the period at which Sir _Charles Whitworth_ closes his\nstatements, the exports from _England_ were rated at 285,776_l._ and\nthe imports from _France_ at only 44,484_l._\u2014On this the enthusiastic\nadmirers of the Balance _in favour_ bless their stars that their country\nimports now 50,157_l._ less in _French_ goods, than it did in 1699, and\nthat, in order to secure this advantage, _England_ experiences no other\ndamage than that the _French_ are fallen in their imports from _England_\nonly 1274_l._ since the year 1699.\n\n\n\n\n_Further Reasons why all Ideas of a favourable Balance in Money,\ndifferent from that which I have supposed, should be rejected._\n\n\n_Great-Britain_ is not the only nation that claims a right to that kind\nof _favour_, which would reduce all _Europe_, in all transactions, to the\nuse of paper-money; but I only speak of _England_ in this place.\n\nMoney is not hid under ground in a country where administration is\nconvinced, both of the impossibility of the people paying exorbitant\ntaxes, without proportionable riches, and of the impossibility of being\nas rich as is requisite for the discharge of enormous taxes, when\nindividuals are compelled to appear less rich, that they may be less\nburdened with imposts.\n\nMoney is not laid under ground in a country, where the smallest sum, as\nit were, equally with the largest, may be placed most securely, till\nthe very moment, when, led by fancy or want, one may think well to\nwithdraw it, and which, from the time when it has been placed, to that\nof recalling it, produces nevertheless a sure interest, which never\nwas delayed a single minute; an interest, which is a matter neither of\nreproach nor of shame.\n\nMoney is not laid under ground in a country, where the reputation of\nbeing rich exposes not the subject to an arbitrary taxation, nor to\ndemands equally ruinous, to informations, extortions, or at least to some\ninjustice in case of a refusal.\n\nMoney is not laid under ground in a country, where regard is the\nappendage not only of wealth, but of credit also, which carries the\nappearance of, and can procure the former.\n\nNor is money hid under ground in a country, where it shews the value of\na man as positively as that of a piece of goods; in a country, where it\nis frankly said, _this man is worth a million_; whether this expression\nbe made use of to signify that the possessor of a million is, at least,\nby the whole extent of that million, far from being guilty of meanness\nand injustice, or that it be understood that nothing but the offer of\nanother million could tempt him to commit anything base or unjust. Money\nis never buried under ground in a country, where it acts so essential\na part; it cannot then be its fate in _England_: all the money in the\npossession of _England_ stands in full evidence; it consists,\u20141st,\nin objects of private luxury, the quantity of which is by no means\nextravagant;\u20142dly, in the mass of cash in circulation. Now this very\n_mass_ is despotically determined by the number of affairs transacted,\nand likewise by the prices and quantity of the property which is to be\ncirculated; yet this mass is, perhaps, in _England_ one half less than it\nwould prove any where else, supposing the same objects to be attained;\nthat universal _mobile_ is too justly appreciated there, to be lavished,\nthat is to say, to be _turned into cash_, beyond what is required to give\ncredit to the paper currency substituted to _cash_.\n\nI shall therefore ask, In what public funds abroad the _English_\nmerchants vest annually the four or five millions of that pretended\n_favourable_ balance in money, since they do not bury it at home?\u2014There\nmight, it is true, still exist another resource; the general balance is\nonly the aggregate of all private balances.\u2e3aBut is it very certain that,\nupon an average, the private balances of all the merchants in _Europe_,\nwho correspond with _England_, are annually charged by one fourth of\nthe amount accruing from that correspondence? For if the _English_ send\nthem 16 every year, and every year import only 12, their correspondents\nare consequently indebted to them annually 4 more than they were the\npreceding year.\n\nThe _favourable balance_, as it is commonly understood, is then a mere\nchimera, which, if realised, would produce no other effect than to\nadvance, at some period or other, the price of a pound of bread to that\nof a pound weight of gold; yet it results, methinks, from the exports\nof _England_, almost trebled within a century, that each nation, with\nwhom the former has trebled her trade, has increased her own, at least,\nby the whole amount of the balance due by her to _England_; for it is\nbeyond a doubt, that one must have three times more to sell, in order to\nbe able to purchase constantly, and pay three times more than he used\nto do. But from this principle may it not be inferred also, that every\nnation, wishing to increase her trade, is interested in an increase of\nthe commerce of all those with whom she means to correspond?\u2014If, in\norder to reduce into practice, if to establish on the most equitable and\nmost solid foundation, a system so truly advantageous to society, Nature\nhad nothing more to combat than private _cupidities_\u2014they balance each\nother. But how many national prejudices, how many maxims sacred to each\nnation, how many absurd regulations, springing from those very maxims and\nprejudices, is she not obliged to modify, as it were, underhand, in their\neffects! What a number of smugglers does that good mother employ, for the\npurpose of bringing all things nearer to that _equilibrium_, from which\nmany are still persuaded it is so very material to deviate!\n\n\n\n\n_Equilibrium necessary in all things.\u2014On the surest means of establishing\nit._\n\n\nIt is a difficult matter to guard against a prejudice in favour of\nliberty, when we consider, that, thanks to the freedom which has always\nvery generally prevailed in those parts of Science, wherein policy\ndisdained to restrain it, we have been taught to weigh air, before any\nprecise idea was obtained on the rule of proportion, which ought to\nregulate matters of exchange. Every thing, in this last particular, is\neven still merely mechanical; and perhaps if the matter were thoroughly\nexamined, it would be found that there is never too much, nor too little\nin one of the scales of the balance, but from an effect of the means\ndevised to establish or preserve the Equilibrium. I do not pretend to\nlay down, for an absolute principle, that the hand of man, like that\nof the harpies, is only capable of poisoning whatever comes within its\nreach, and that the wisest conduct would be, to keep it with care from\nevery thing that one should wish to preserve from corruption; such a\nproposition would, no doubt, prove rather too general; yet one cannot\nhelp observing, that there are but few countries where administration\nhas not often, owing to the grossest ignorance, or some principle of\ninjustice, or of a cupidity almost equally blind, restrained some very\nlucrative _cultures_, to which the nature of the soil and of the climate\nwould have given a perfection that could be attained no where else; or\nhave not encouraged some costly produce, to which Nature refuses those\nqualities which she liberally bestows under another sky.\n\nNeither can one refrain from remarking also, that from those regulations,\nand from many more of the same kind relative to manufactories, no other\neffect can result than that of buying up at home, very dear, and often of\na bad or indifferent quality, that which might be purchased abroad of an\nexcellent kind, and at a cheaper rate, and which might be paid for with\nthe productions of the earth and industry, better suited to the climate\nof the purchaser.\n\nIt is also observed, that, without the interference of administration or\nof philosophy, the balance between want and the relative quantity of the\ndifferent productions of the earth, is always, upon a medium, admirably\nsupported by the sole interest of the cultivator, ever perfectly and\nsolely guided by the common demand for each of these productions.\n\nIt is also remarked, that a second balance, and a very necessary\none, between the mean price of those different productions, is also\nmechanically established, on the difference of labour and of the\ncapitals, which the same cultivator lays out upon each of them, without\nany other motive but that of employing with discernment, his hands and\nhis capital, to derive from them the greatest benefit. He never thinks of\nrestoring the equilibrium between the general prices, when the price of\nthe product A has fallen, and when a continued advance on the product B\ninvites him to multiply the latter, by transferring to its cultivation,\na more considerable share of his labour and of his capital. Nor does he\nthink of it, when laying out new supplies of labour and money if the\nprice of the product B keeps up whilst that of the product A goes on\nincreasing; he does not think of it; and yet, without any other reason\nor motive than his own interest, he restores that necessary equilibrium.\nMuch less still does he think that an increase maintained in the price\nof one object, without diminution in that of other articles, bespeaks\nan increase of the general consumption, which soon must raise the price\nof every thing. Nay, it is very probable that he will not take notice\nthat he _sells_ all his goods at a higher rate, and that he will soon\ncomplain of the general advance in the price of all those which he buys,\nbecause his interest is his only guide: but this interest is opposed by\nthat of industry; and from this clashing, in spite of the two opponents,\narises a new balance, more loaded, no doubt, than the first, but not less\nnecessary, not less equitable, and yet no one has meddled with it.\n\nAll these things may be easily observed; but what ought to be more\nparticularly attended to, and what is most overlooked, is the\nimpossibility of ascertaining the difference between the hand-labour and\ncapitals to which we owe the productions of the earth, the knowledge of\nwhich is within the reach of every one, and the labour and capitals\nto which we owe the productions of industry, in which the workmanship\nof an article often constitutes the half, and sometimes 99 hundredths\nof its value: it is a disadvantage against which agriculture cannot be\neffectually protected but by a competition, which can be the result\nonly of the greatest freedom. The absolute _passiveness_, which, in the\nabove stated circumstances, is sufficient, on the part of Government, to\neffect the greatest good, appears here indispensable, to avoid acts of\ninjustice. Why should the trading part complain of that _passiveness_,\nwhilst a number of cultivators, proportioned to that of the artisans,\nproduce in the State a revenue equal to the maintenance and support of\nindustry? Now the fact appears the more certain, as, upon the least\nreflexion, one may be sensible, that if an epidemic disorder should break\nout amongst the husbandmen only, and thus deprive cultivation of one half\nof its proper number of hands, the survivors would not fail to increase\nthe price of their labour, and the farmer that of his farm, by so much as\nwould indemnify agriculture for the loss which she might have sustained,\nand that the advance in her prices would fall off only in proportion\nas the handicraftsmen without employment, by the uselessness of that\nportion of the produce of industry, hitherto consumed by the cultivators\nwho fell victims to the disease, would themselves turn cultivators; an\noperation which would soon restore the proper balance between the two\nrevenues, as well as between the prices of labour, from which all kinds\nof produce originate. Let the effects of the disease be transferred from\nthe cultivators to the handicraftsmen, the same man\u0153uvre will be played\noff by those who preside over industry.\n\nShould another reason be wanted to strengthen my argument in its\nmost essential part, I could adduce an incontestable fact, as little\ncontroverted in _France_ as it is in _England_, namely, that in both\ncountries the whole of the landed property does not yield three fourths\nof what it ought to produce.\u2014Then, either the respective industry of\nthe two nations ransoms agriculture, and binds her up, without being\nsuspected of doing so, to that state of mediocrity to which she is\nreduced; in which case, single out of your regulations, those which\nfavour industry at the expence of cultivation, and endeavour to expunge\nthem, since agriculture stands clearly in want both of hands and\ncapitals; or your industry and agriculture are neither of them nearly\narrived to that degree of perfection which they are calculated to reach;\nthat is to say, you have not the number of cultivators which your land\ncan nourish, nor of course, so many artificers as your land can maintain;\nin this case also, revise your regulations; there is not one of them\nwhich does not affect your agriculture in a direct or indirect manner; by\nher you must begin: cultivators, unthinkingly and without regret, give\nbirth to a race of artisans;\u2014it is, on the contrary, as it were in spite\nof industry, and by a kind of reaction which she spares no endeavours to\nretard, that cultivators are produced by artisans. _Never will industry\nlay out a shilling upon the land if she can employ it in any other\nenterprise._\n\nBut, would the inland trade, without which agriculture cannot subsist,\nflourish, if foreign commerce should not be encouraged in a particular\nmanner? And were any circumstances whatever, combined together so as to\noccasion such an alteration in the price of necessaries, as would deprive\nindustry of the proper means to support abroad a competition which cannot\npossibly subsist but by an equality of means; would it not then become\nnecessary for government, to shew a special favour to commerce, intrusted\nwith the care of that competition? _The manufacturers, in all countries,\ninsist so forcibly on such a necessity! The ruling powers in every nation\nare so convinced of the truth of the above maxim!_\n\nThis question, truly important, requires some details on the different\ncauses productive of the alteration in the prices.\n\nAlthough I may often appear, in the following suppositions, to lose sight\nof the revenue arising from industry, and pay attention to that of the\nland only, we must not forget the mechanical principle, or rather the\nforce of Nature, who, sooner or later, in spite of all the subtilty of\nman, keeps an exact balance between those two sources of national wealth,\nand causes all the revolutions of the one to be unavoidably felt by the\nother.\n\n\n\n\n_Various Causes of the Alteration in the Prices._\n\n\nAs long as we shall suppose, in a country standing by itself, the same\nproducts, the same consumption, the same quantity of money, the same\nfreedom, no reason can ever be assigned for an increase or falling-off in\nthe price of any article generally known, and of general use; but,\n\n\n_Second Hypothesis_,\n\nLet us suppose, that population is doubled as well as the revenue; no\nalteration can certainly take place in the real value of things;\u2014that\nvalue will remain for each article, the same as it was before; that is,\n_the sum of the labour requisite for the production of that article_:[5]\nneither will the relative value undergo any change; the quantity of\nlabour known, or supposed, in two different objects of a certain\nconsumption, will remain, as at first, the sole criterion for fixing the\ndifference of value in the one and the other. The essential relation\nof general correspondence between the wants, and the real resources,\nremaining also the same, there can likewise be no real difference in\nthe situation of any individual whatever; if there are every where two\n_consumers_ to one, the same increase will be found in the number of\n_productors_. The only palpable, and unavoidable alteration, always\ngrievous when it is sudden, is that which, in the present hypothesis,\nmust have taken place in the nominal value, that is to say, in the\nmoney-price of every thing; for the quantity of coin which was in\ncirculation, being always the same in that country, standing by itself\nas we have supposed, and without mines, whilst the objects representing\nthe said quantity, had successively doubled, it had been indispensable,\nsuccessively, either by degrees, or by starts, to come to the point of\ngiving for 2 in money, that which could not be given before for less\nthan 4, or rather of denominating 4, that same quantity of money which\nhitherto had been denominated 2.\u2014If you look for a precedent of the\nfirst effects of a disproportion too considerable or too rapid, between\nthe wants and the demands, or between the mass of coin in circulation,\nand the number of articles to be circulated, it will be found, in the\nrevolutions which took place in _England_, during the space of two years\n_only_, 1288, 1289, the quarter of wheat rose from 1_s._ to 2_s._ then\nto 3_s._ 9_s._ 12_s._ came down again to 2_s._ was then raised all at\nonce to 20_s._ and fell at last to 16_s._ where it seemed to support\nitself for some years (see the excellent _Inquiry_ of Mr. _Smith_, _into\nthe Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_); this is the man truly\ncapable of dissecting, as it were, that subject, of which I can, at best,\nbut mangle the _epidermis_.\n\n\n_Third Hypothesis._\n\nTo remedy the evil in such circumstances, how many expedients are tried,\nwhich only serve to increase it! How many avowed depredations upon\npretended usurers, before the Sovereign boldly ventures to partake with\nthem in the public execration by ordering a re-coinage, which, under the\nsame denomination, will give but a part of the weight, or of the quality\nof the former coin! Yet this cannot be avoided. But by ascertaining, as\nwe have done before, a two-fold increase in the revenue, and supposing\none million and a half to have been sufficient to the circulation of\nthe first revenue; if the Prince with his 1,500,000_l._ instead of a\ncoinage of three millions, should have struck only 2,400,000_l._\u2014after\nsome fluctuation, the balance will be restored between the price or\nnominal value of the negociable articles, and the quantity of money in\ncirculation;\u2014but what had been sold for 5 heretofore, will then go for\n4; the prices will have fallen one fifth, and the circulation will be\nclogged:\u2014But above all, it should be observed, that _no one will be the\npoorer, notwithstanding the diminution of the nominal value_.\n\n\n_Fourth Hypothesis._\n\nIf the re-coinage has been in the proportion necessary to re-establish\nexactly the former facility in all the channels of circulation, the\nformer prices will return after the inevitable fluctuations; the quarter\nof wheat, for instance, which at some period of the revolution, will have\nbeen raised to 20_s._ will fall back to 5_s._ as it was at the beginning,\nalthough the shilling contains only half the silver that it contained\nat that time, 130 grains we shall say, instead of the 260 or 264 it\ncontained in the year 1300.\n\n\n_Fifth Hypothesis._\n\nNow let us suppose, what has happened in all countries, that the Prince\nand his Ministers have laid hold of the opportunity, the former, to pay\nthe debts he had incurred in the time of national distress and confusion,\nthe latter, to procure a more rapid increase of their fortunes, and\nthat, with the 1,500,000_l._ supposed in circulation, they have struck\n6 millions, instead of the 3 wanted to answer the real increase of the\nrevenues and of population;\u2014certainly when the calm returns, 10_s._ will\nbe the price of a quarter of wheat, which sold for 5_s._ in the _first\nhypothesis_;\u2014a most decisive argument this, for the manufacturer to sell\nat 8 that very cloth which went for 4, and an uncontrovertible ground\nof right in the working people to charge 4_d._ for that which before\nthey performed at 2_d._\u2014In these two points center all the practical\ninferences in which any individual in the State can be concerned: yet the\nshilling will contain only 65 grains of silver, instead of 260;\u2014and if\nthe price of every thing be doubled, it is not on account of the shilling\ncontaining only 65 grains in lieu of 260, since, upon this principle,\nthe quarter of wheat must have fetched 20_s._ instead of 10_s._\u2014but it\nis because, in all cases, there are two pieces of money to answer the\npurpose of one, and that _it was necessary, in order that the second\nmight acquire one half of its former value, that the first should lose\nthat very half_.\n\n\n_Sixth Hypothesis._\n\nAt this period, let it be supposed, that an epidemical distemper sweeps\noff three-fourths of the inhabitants, and consequently takes away as\nmuch from the revenue:\u2014After the terrors usual in such cases, and a\nscore of prophecies, foretelling that Doomsday is at hand, yet will it\nappear that the world is not destroyed: it will also appear, that the\nepidemical disorder has not carried off the money, and that it would\nbe wrong not to make use of it.\u2014The specie must of course, lose nearly\nthree fourths of its value if the whole should continue in circulation,\nbecause 4 pieces will present themselves to do the office which 1 could\nperform before the time of the distemper;\u2014the quarter of wheat, at first\nrated at 5 shillings, sunk to 4 in the _second hypothesis_, then sold for\n10 in the _fifth_, will in the present one, rise up to 40, _without any\none growing richer or poorer for it; for_, most assuredly, _the price of\nlabour will have increased in proportion to that of its own produce_.\n\n\n_Seventh Hypothesis._\n\nThe effect would have been the same, if, instead of the distemper just\nsupposed, the general enthusiasm on the discovery of a gold or silver\nmine, had induced the Sovereign to add to the circulation three times the\nquantity of specie which had hitherto been sufficient.\n\n\n_Eighth Hypothesis._\n\nIn the supposition of an event the most opposite to that of an epidemic\ndisease, viz. of the revenue being increased one half, one third, nay,\nthree fourths, if you please, as well as the population; yet the mine\nyielding a great deal above what is necessary to answer to an increase\nin all kinds, and the Sovereign being resolved upon a recoinage of the\nspecie, on principles entirely different from the former, that is, by\npreserving exactly the same number, standard, and denomination of the\ncoin; the number, because it is sufficient; the denomination, because\nthere must be one, and that it is indifferent which it bears; and the\nstandard, because there is no further danger in fixing it; but, by\nadvancing the weight of a shilling from 65 to 86 grains, there will\ncertainly be no alteration in the prices; the wheat will keep up at 40\nshillings, and other articles in the same proportion;\u2014and _none will be\nricher or poorer for it_, although, at the price of 40_s._ the quarter\nof wheat, they give, without hesitation, 3440 grains of silver for an\narticle for which they gave 650 only, previous to the epidemic disease,\nor the opening of the mine, which has produced the same effect.\n\n\n_Ninth Hypothesis._\n\nWhen such revolutions are brought about by slow degrees, no one is\nsensible either of the effect, or of the cause; but, at last, both are\nattended to. Let us then suppose, that the generality of the people\nreflect that gold and silver, considered as coin, derive all their value\nfrom imagination;\u2014that money is, strictly speaking, nothing more than\na medium adopted to facilitate the division and transport of all other\nkinds of property;\u2014that it is but a sign, the place of which may be\neasily supplied by any other, which by general consent may be honoured\nwith the same distinction, or ordered for the same use;\u2014that its value,\nin this point of view, rises or falls unavoidably, according to its\nquantity, _without influencing the intrinsic or relative value of the\narticles it represents, a value constantly determined by the sum of the\nlabour that produces them_, just as their relative, _common_ quantity\nfollows, servilely and closely, the demand.\u2014All these remarks cannot\nprevent us from observing a value far more essential in gold and silver,\nconsidered as metals susceptible of all the forms that can be useful,\nor can please the eye, while the nature and texture of their parts\nsecure them from accidents equally disagreeable and dangerous, to which\nall other metals are liable: we should not therefore be surprised, if\nsome reflexions, suggested by wisdom and humanity, were to lead us to\nthat point which first originated in the extravagance of ambition, and\nthe rage of politics; I mean, that, after having considered that no\nmanner of good was produced by that disparagement of coin, which always\nresulted from its multiplication, and that the health of man was, on\nthe contrary, interested in putting to a better use those metals, the\nquantity of which, being doubled in circulation, only served to double\nthe price of every thing;\u2014we should not be surprised, I say, not only\nthat nothing was spared to encourage the goldsmith\u2019s trade, but even,\nthat half of the coin was melted down, and transformed into plate, and\nthe _deficit_ supplied by a quantity of _paper-currency_, answering to\nthat of the coin thus employed; a _paper-currency_, which it would be\nsufficient to distinguish by some mark or token agreed upon, to give it\nin circulation, exactly the same properties as that part of the metals\nwhich was transferred to a more advantageous purpose.\n\nIn regard to the danger of paper-currency increasing above the quantity\nwanted, it is as little to be feared, and its superabundance would soon\nbe made as sensible by its effect, as that of a superfluity of coin.\u2014If\nyou double the mass of money intended for circulation, how will you\nprevent such articles as sold for 4 only, from rising to 8, or the\nadditional 4 from becoming useless?\u2014And if paper-currency be in question,\nhow will you prevent the extravagantly-avaricious wretch, who envies\nothers the enjoyments he denies to himself, how can you prevent him, I\nsay, from observing that paper rots in the ground, and that to bury his\nwealth he must exchange it for cash?\u2014how will you prevent this want of\nmoney, immediately felt, from destroying, without resource, the credit\nwhich that mass of buried money had hitherto given to paper-currency? So\nlong, therefore, as the paper keeps up its credit, one may rest assured\nthat the public is not over-loaded with it. I shall, in the sequel,\nventure some reflexions on the true cause of that part of the increase\nin prices, which is attributed to the quantity of paper-currency in\ncirculation; contenting myself here with a recapitulation of what I have\njust said on the different causes of the alteration in prices, according\nto the foregoing hypothesis, by concluding,\n\nFirst, That a nation which should rejoice in being possessed (for the\nconvenience of covetous individuals) of a _vortex_, into which they could\ncast, at pleasure, without profit, but also without anxiety, an immense\ntreasure, which was the produce of the pains taken by so many useful and\nindustrious hands, would, in fact, only congratulate herself on being\npossessed of the effectual means of robbing the present and succeeding\nages, of all the advantages that must have accrued from the use made of\nthat money, _in any part of the world_, where it might have produced,\nand encouraged a new branch of industry, _the reaction of which would\nhave turned to the profit of the nation in possession of such ~vortex~._\n\nSecondly, That a nation, which should rejoice in being the owner of an\nimmense quantity of coin in circulation, would, in fact, congratulate\nherself on that want of credit which renders such quantity indispensable.\n\nThirdly, That as soon as government, in such a nation, should have\nsolemnly given up the right, supposed to be unalienable, of paying its\ndebts, from no other motive but that of extreme honour and benevolence,\nthe nation might then part with half her coin, and without impeding the\ncirculation, increase her enjoyments and her wealth, which can be nothing\nmore than _the total of her annual labour, together with the monuments\nstill subsisting of the labour of preceding years_: a total, which could\nnot but increase in the case now supposed.\n\nFourthly, That, in regard to the coin, the most wretched paper-factory,\nassisted with that credit which is founded, not on kindness, but on\njustice and interest, is far preferable to the richest mine in _America_.\n\nFifthly, That the difference in the real value between one article and\nanother, is only the difference of the labour which produces it; and\nthat _all regulation, tending to throw a veil on the quantity of labour\ncontained in one article, is unjust_; since it turns to the prejudice of\nany individual in the community, _who is not the author of this unknown\nlabour_.\n\nSixthly, That the nominal price of the _essential_ article, to which\nthat of the others must finally revert and conform, fixed at first by\nits proportion in the quantity of articles to be represented, and by the\ndivisions and subdivisions of the mass of money then existing for that\nuse, this nominal _common_ price will certainly rise or fall, constantly,\nand _without the least inconvenience_, just as that first quantity of\ncoin shall cease to answer, by more or by less, to the quantity of the\nobjects of which it was calculated to transfer the property.\n\nSeventhly, That, supposing it to be a fact, proved incontestably by the\nmint-registers, and the average price at _Windsor_, that from the year\n1300 to 1309, wheat, at its highest rate, was not above 7_s._ _per_\nquarter, the shilling weighing 264 grains of silver, which made the\nquarter come only to 1848 grains; that in the year 1551, the same sold\nfor 8_s._ the shilling containing then only 60 grains, which made it\nexactly 160 grains _per_ quarter; and that the same sells now, I will\nsay, at 40_s._ the shilling containing 86 grains, which is 3440 grains\nfor a quarter of wheat; yet, from these facts no inference can be drawn\nthat could affect any individual whatever, unless it should be proved,\nthat money makes part of our food, or that it is impossible, at this\npresent time, to procure, with any _given_ labour, more or less wheat\nthan that identical labour could procure at that period.\n\nEighthly, That the _real_ difference between 1848 grains of silver, and\n3440, which is perceivable between the prices of the years 1300 and\n1785, would not even be sufficient, were it considered by itself, to\ninvalidate, or confirm this futile proposition, that the mass or stock of\nmoney is nearly doubled in _England_; for we have already found, that,\nsupposing the case of an epidemic distemper, which would have carried\noff three fourths of the people, and consequently reduced the revenue\nin the same proportion, the price of every thing must have increased\nfourfold, if the three fourths of the coin had not been buried under\nground; we have seen, on the contrary, that it has been possible to\nwithdraw from circulation half of the current cash, and make good this\nsubstraction in a very advantageous manner, by introducing scraps of\npaper in its stead, without making any alteration in the general prices,\nor in the least affecting the circumstances of any one, poor or rich,\nunless some collateral incident should intervene to bring about a change;\nand the least reflexion will convince us, that the mass of specie might\nbe quadruplicated in a nation, without any material variation in the\nprices, _if the sum of labour, and of its products, as well as of the\nconsumption, should augment proportionably_.\n\nBut, in stating that the only\u2014the infallible reason for the variations of\n_common_ prices in the foregoing hypotheses, is the change of proportion\nbetween the mass of specie, or of the paper-currency which represents\nit, and the articles of which the one, or the other, is to transfer the\nproperty, there is no inconsistency in persisting to pretend that taxes\nadd to the former prices, both the amount of the impost, and the profit\ndue to the trader who advances it. But, in both cases the progress is\ndifferent: in the former, it is the quantity of the specie actually in\nbeing which necessitates and fixes the prices; in the latter, it is the\nnecessary advance in the prices, that _necessitates_ and _fixes_ the\nquantity of specie, or paper-money which is substituted to it.\u2014Luckily,\nas we have already observed, it has been enough for _England_ to find,\nonce for all, money to the amount of 5 millions sterling, (cash and\npaper) for discharging to the end of time, the interest of a debt\ncomputed at 238 millions, the same currency.\u2014But upon a supposition\nthat the debt incurred by _France_, from the year 1774, should amount\nto 15 or 1600 millions _tournois_, and the yearly produce of _French_\nindustry in all its branches, (at the common rate of 1775) be of\n2,400,000,000_l._\u2014the interest of 80 millions and upwards, to be paid for\nsuch a debt, requires an adequate increase of taxes:\u2014now, 80 millions\n_tournois_ constitute about the 30th part of the annual revenue produced\nby _French_ industry, the nominal value of which must be increased by\nthose taxes;\u2014but as paper-money does not supply in _France_ the place\nof cash, it has been, of course, necessary to augment by one 30th,\nthe mass of specie, which proved sufficient before the rise in the\nprices, occasioned by the impost;\u2014this mass, it is said, was rated at\n2,400,000,000 of _livres_, the 30th part of which is 66,666,666 13_s._\nand 4_d._ _tournois_, a very considerable sum indeed; but nevertheless\nnothing more has been necessary, to prevent any inquietude on the\nsubject, than to procure that sum, once for all; and, _once for all\nlikewise_, to add thereto the effect of some re-actions, of which I\nshall speak presently; nothing more, I say, was wanted to secure, in\nan indefensible manner, the interest of a loan of 1500 millions, and\nto secure it so as to raise in the minds of the holders of stock to\nso immense an amount, no other apprehension than that of their being\nreimbursed.\n\nSome will say, perhaps, \u201cthis reasoning is frivolous, and founded on\nthe absurd supposition of a general combination, a kind of universal\nconspiracy, in order to raise the price of every thing proportionably\nto the _taxes_.\u201d I know that such a combination, such a conspiracy is\nimpossible; I know that there is not in _France_ a single edict, nor\nany particular act of parliament in _England_, to enforce, or even to\npermit it; but I am sensible that such an act, and such an edict, would\nbe perfectly useless, when I see, that in either of those countries there\nis not a rational being, capable of reflexion, who will not say, _Taxes\noccasion a dreadful advance in the prices of every thing_: it is true\nthat the order is sometimes inverted, and then the cry is\u2014_How cruel\nit is that the price of every article is increased, whilst the taxes\ndiminish our means of purchase!_\u2014But if every article rises in a due\nproportion, we must conclude that there is no alteration in the state\nof the balance; for if every individual in a nation buys up, every one\nsells also, one his labour, another his wares, a third his corn; and if\nevery thing grows dearer, except the article you have to sell, you must\nown yourself completely in the wrong: luckily the landed proprietors\nare as little in the wrong as they possibly can be; for as often as\nthey renew a lease, they increase their rental, just as if they had got\npossession of my _little_ secret, or as if there were _corporations_ also\nin agriculture.\u2014The agents of industry are still less liable to be in the\nwrong, for all their operations are founded on the following rule:\u2014_For\npurchase so much,\u2014for freight so much,\u2014so much for taxes,\u2014to these add my\ncommission or profit\u2014The balance is so much, which I must be paid, as I\nshall settle with the members of my corporation._ Besides, the commercial\npart of the nation is too well persuaded how necessary it is to secure _a\nfavourable general balance_, to be mistaken in the means of equipoising\ntheir private ones.\n\nIt is my opinion, therefore, that one may, without being a conjurer,\nforetell that the last dreadful and convulsive shock, almost generally\nfelt all over the world, will finally, and in a very little time, end in\nthe loose remembrance of some thousands of hands having been, foolishly\nenough, taken from their peaceable occupations, very favourable to\npopulation, to employ them in forwarding destructive plans, to which\nmany thousands of men have fallen a sacrifice; one might also add,\nthousands of depredations, some of which, the most pardonable in their\nnature, have been punished at the gallows: perhaps even they will say\nmodestly in _France_, _We have reduced the English, but we were four\nto one_\u2014and then _England_ will proudly answer, _We have been reduced,\nbut we were only one to four_; nor would it be at all unreasonable to\nlament, that the value of 4 or 5 millions sterling in gold and silver,\nfatuously ornamented with the escutcheons of _England_ and _France_,\n_to consolidate for ever the interest of 140 or 150 millions, which\nconstitute the last debts contracted by the two rival nations_, be\nnot humbly stamped with the puncheon made use of to mark the plate in\n_London_ and _Paris_ ... but, to suppose that there will be in _London_\nor _Paris_ a single carriage less! that _France_ will lessen her\nimportation of _English_ goods, or that the demand for _French_ wines\nwill be less from _England_\u2014is an idea which cannot, in my mind, coincide\nwith that of a population and industry which, hitherto had sufficed in\nboth nations to answer all those different purposes; of a population,\nI say, and of an industry, which will, in all likelihood, go on still\nincreasing every day, wherever they shall not be checked by the laws.\n\nOne of the most fatal effects that spring from that increase in the\nprices, occasioned by the impost, is, as they say, the impossibility\nto which a country is reduced, of supporting abroad the rivalship, the\ncompetition of a nation less burdened with taxes, who of course can, they\nsay, undersell every thing.\n\nSuch is, in fine, the question which I thought the fastidious details\nI have entered into, ought to preface, and might render of more easy\nsolution. But I request the reader to examine previously,\n\n1st, Whether an accession of wealth, an addition of gold and money to the\ncirculation, would not increase the prices of every thing, as necessarily\nas taxes must do it;\u20142dly, If that increase in prices, procured by\nwealth, would not be accompanied with the same inconveniences in regard\nto the supporting of a competition abroad;\u2014and, 3dly, If the stranger to\nwhom we should declare ourselves compelled to sell him our goods dearer,\n_because we are grown richer than the rival nation_, would not have\nthe same answer to give us, as if he were told, _that the cause of the\nadvance in the price is, our being loaded more heavily with taxes_.\n\nIf these three questions cannot be answered but in the affirmative, we\nshould then be obliged to suspect that there is something inexplicable,\nill judged, and not better grounded in the clamours which resound in\nevery part of _England_ on this subject; and this surmise might perhaps\nincline the reader to peruse, without prejudice, what I am going to set\ndown, with no other view, than to find out some useful truths.\n\n\n\n\n_On the Influence of the National Prices on the Sales in Foreign Markets._\n\n\nThe impossibility of a competition in trade with those who can afford\ncheaper, _in money_, the articles which are to be the object of such\na trade, is so affirmatively maintained, and this principle is so\nself-evident, when applied to two manufacturers in the same town,\ncircumscribed in their selling as well as their buying, within the\nprecincts of the same country, where the one should always procure for\n3, what the other would have the stupidity to buy constantly at 4, that\nit becomes pardonable (if one carries the examination no farther) to\nadmit of this idea, taken in a most comprehensive manner, as one of those\ntrivial truths, which are not worth being searched into. But I must own,\nthat my reflexions on the pretended necessity of keeping the commercial\nbalance constantly in _favour_, have made me rather circumspect in giving\ncredit to opinions the most generally received.\n\nIt will not be in regard to the situation of a country, which might\nallege a difference of 7 or 8 _per cent._ in its prices, as an\ninsurmountable bar to competition, that I shall examine in what manner\nthat very competition might be established; I shall suppose a nation\nin the 6th, 7th, and 8th _hypotheses_, wherein wheat is rated at\n40_s._ _per_ quarter, by a series of revolutions in the coin, or a\nmultiplication of taxes, or by an increase in wealth; and I shall place\nit in opposition to another nation, considered as paying few or no taxes,\nand humbly consuming her wheat at the rate of 26 or 27_s._ the quarter.\n\nIn order to render the effects of the disproportion more sensible,\nI shall further suppose, that the shilling in both nations equally\ncontains 86 grains of silver at the same standard.\n\nBefore these two nations be represented as vying with each other in the\nforeign markets, I shall, in the first instance, examine, whether it\nmight not be possible to settle between them a direct trade, equally\nadvantageous to both; for if this be practicable, why should not the\ncompetition be so likewise?\u2014Is not the trade of each competitor a direct\none with the nation, in which he vies?\u2014And if, in this case, there be a\nsure and equitable principle for one of the competitors, why should it\nnot be so for the other?\n\n\n\n\n_A necessary Principle of Trade, considered both as ~direct~, and ~in\nCompetition~._\n\n\nIn all imaginable suppositions, Commerce is nothing more than the\nexchange of one want against another want, or of one fancy against\nanother fancy; or, in fine, of a fancy against a want. All idea of a\ncommerce between two nations, as between man and man, carries with it\ntwo objects different in their nature, or their form; and the relative\nvalue of these objects must essentially be previously determined by some\ngeneral principle, if we mean not to transact business in the dark.\n\nNow, the nation so rich, or, in other words, so over-loaded with money,\nas to have raised, at home, the quarter of wheat to 40_s._ can certainly\nhave no real interest in taking away the small portion of the other,\nso scantily provided, that she is obliged to sell for 24 or 27_s._\nthat which fetches 40_s._ to the former; for, after all, what would be\nthe consequence of this spoliation? It would serve only to lessen, in\nthe opulent country, the value of the precious metal already so much\ndisparaged there. What then will be the case, if both have sense enough\nto prefer real enjoyments to chimerical possessions, or rather, profit to\nloss?\n\nAfter the first years, destined, since the establishment of Societies,\nto be spent in endeavouring, if possible to cheat each other, it\nwill certainly become indispensable to agree upon a fixed rule of\nappraisement, as unexceptionable for one country as for the other. Now,\nin the supposed state of the question, money cannot be that rule; for\none of them demands none, and the other is not willing to part with any,\nnot out of regard for the _favourable balance_, but because she would\nget less by the exportation of her money, than of her goods; it will\ntherefore become necessary, for the respective advantage of the parties\nconcerned, to agree, that the labour of 10, of 100, of 1000 men in one\ncountry, shall be looked upon as repaid by the labour of the same number\nof hands from the other, upon a tacit proviso nevertheless, that the\nrespective merchants in both nations shall have it in their power to\nransom their countrymen, according to the proportions established in both\ncountries, _a little_ by the degree of estimation in which commerce is\nheld, but a _great deal_ by the degree of foreign competition by which\nthe natives are or will be kept or called to order.\u2014And what is required\nto prevent any injustice, and, above all, any mistrust from the merchant\nof one nation towards the merchant of the other?\u2014Nothing more than to\nfollow the practice almost generally established all over _Europe_.\u2014The\nmerchant in _Rome_, I suppose, will send his son to his friend in\n_London_, and _vice vers\u00e2_. Now if the _Roman_ perceives that in\n_London_, where a quarter of wheat costs 40_s._ the article he proposes\nto buy is commonly sold at 80_s._ he will readily conceive, without\nhaving gone through a course of algebra, that some other article, which\nis bespoke of him in exchange, going for 54_s._ in _Rome_, where wheat is\nat 27_s._ _per_ quarter, he will exactly pay, value for value, according\nto the balance and weight of the commercial sanctuary, the 80 of _London_\nwith the 54 of _Rome_.\n\nIt appears to me that matters thus settled, might remain so for ever,\nwithout inconvenience, without any alteration of prices, in either of\nthe two nations, had not Nature, either from mere caprice, or to make\nmen, in spite of themselves, dependent on each other, and oblige them to\nlook on one another as brethren, established certain unknown rules, in\nconsequence of which, that very same wheat, which would cost only 26 or\n27_s._ at _Rome_, we have supposed, and 40_s._ in _London_, this same\nwheat I say, the staff of life all over _Europe_, every where accounted\nthe standard of labour, and every where cultivated in proportion to its\ncommon necessity, is at times nevertheless at one place in great plenty,\nand very scarce at another. Now it seems to be a matter of perfect\nindifference, that in regard to any other article a merchant should\nransom his wealthy fellow citizen, a landed proprietor, by charging\nhim, for instance, 30 crowns for an _English_ trinket, originally\npurchased for no more than 10, as an equitable measure between labour\nand labour: it is the younger son who robs the elder brother, to provide\nagainst the right of primogeniture; or, in other words, it is no more\nthan the transferring of a few crowns, from a very valuable hand, that\nof the consumer, to another equally precious, that of an agent of the\nproduction: but it is of the utmost consequence for the Sovereign, that,\nin a time of scarcity, insatiable men, were they even his subjects, do\nnot presume to ask 4000 grains of silver for a quarter of wheat, upon\npretence that in _England_, from whence it was imported, they have paid\nfor it 3440 grains, (for it is always upon such _victorious arguments_\nthat the national monopolist endeavours to defend his extortions, in\ntimes of distress); the difference is so great between 4000 grains\nof silver, and only 2200 or 2300, the common price by which that of\nlabour is regulated in my hypothesis, that all the treasure shut up\nin the castle of _St. Angelo_ could not prevent half the inhabitants\nfrom starving for want of food in a time of dearth. Luckily, however,\nthis misfortune may be obviated by one of the grandest operations in\nfinance, that can possibly be conceived; for the object is no less than\nto oblige the people to pay in good earnest for their wheat in a moment\nof scarcity, at the rate of 4000 grains of silver _per_ quarter, a price\nso far above the means of that very people, to whom the intention is to\nshew some favour. This financiering operation is founded on the following\nremark, obvious to the meanest capacity, and perhaps not unworthy of\nbeing deeply searched into by a judicious observer.\n\nWere the wheat in _England_ to cost only from 26 to 27_s._ _per_ quarter,\nthe landed revenue, now called 63 millions, would, in fact, amount to no\nmore than 42; this cannot be controverted: in this case every thing would\nbe paid for in proportion, and certainly no one could gain or lose by it:\ntherefore if we invert the proportion, _i. e._ if the quarter of wheat\nrise to 40_s._ at _Rome_, instead of 27_s._ and the other productions\nof the earth and of industry rise in price in the same proportion,\nas well as the labour by which they are procured, the revenue of the\nEcclesiastical State, which, in the present supposition, would be only\n10 millions sterling, would swell suddenly up to 15 millions, without\nany one being a sufferer.\u2014When the question is, only to take a _nominal_\nshare in the most dreaded effects of the _English_ taxes, in order to\nprocure such an addition of wealth, and get rid, at the same time, of all\nfear of scarcity, it would be very wrong to reject the expedient.\u2014Money,\nit is said, is wanted to carry on the whole circulation at that\nrate;\u2014but, in _England_, where, by a single nod, they attract money\nfrom every part of the globe, do they not make guineas with paper?\u2014Why\nshould they not, at _Rome_, make as many paper-crowns as are necessary to\nfacilitate a general circulation of the products there? These products\nare so wisely raised in price from 27 to 40_s._ that the number of grains\nof silver necessary to purchase a pound of wheat, made into a loaf, being\nnow nearly upon an equality in _Holland_, in _France_, and at _Rome_, the\nnational trader, whose business it will be to guard against scarcity,\n_and the foreign merchants who will be invited to concur in remedying\nthe evil_, will no longer be able to add to the price of wheat, any more\nthan a reasonable compensation for his advance, trouble, risque, and the\nquality of the service rendered: a compensation besides, on the extent\nof which it will be much more difficult to impose upon the Sovereign, or\nany one else, at least beyond a certain degree: to this advantage let us\nadd that of keeping the needy from the thoughts of destroying that wealth\nwhich has been gleaned by former services.\n\nIn regard to the confidence necessary to favour that paper money, with\nthe same degree of value as that of _England_ has obtained, I confess\nthat I do not hesitate to suppose, that the paper-money of a Sovereign is\nnever deemed contemptible, but when an opinion prevails that he himself\nwill despise it; and I dare say (were I to be charged with a want of\nmodesty) that the public is too deeply interested in the inferences that\nmay be drawn from my arguments, for their consistency or absurdity not\nto be very soon demonstrated: now, supposing them to be consistent,\nI think it would be, _then_, beyond all possibility, even to imagine\na circumstance wherein the interest of a Prince could induce him to\ndishonour himself. This great truth, generally acknowledged, could not\nlong remain ineffectual.\u2014But this is not the matter in point.\n\nThe case in point is, to observe,\n\nFirst, that, in the same manner as foreign coin is resolved into the\nquantity and standard of the metals that compose it, in order to know how\nmuch of the national coin may be given in exchange, just so all kinds of\nforeign commodities are resolved into the quantity of labour contained\nin them, or supposed to be so, that the quantity of national labour,\ncorresponding thereto, may be ascertained:\n\nSecondly, that therefore, labour alone being the standard of value,\n_labour_ is consequently the only _standard_ that can regulate the\nexchanges between one nation and another:\n\nThirdly, that the national prices, or, to speak more properly, money is,\nin fact, the most proper standard of labour between two manufacturers\nin the same town; and that nothing but the misconduct and unrestrained\ncupidity of the one, can prevent him from selling his goods at the price\nby which the other clears a profit that satisfies him; but in each\ncountry the common price of labour being arbitrarily determined by the\ncommon price of the materials necessary to set the labourer at work, the\ncommon price of wheat is, in fact, the measure of the common price of\nlabour in all nations:\n\nFourthly, that it is impossible a nation should be willing to barter a\ngreater quantity of its own labour, against a less quantity of the labour\nof another; _and yet it is to such a degree of absurdity, that we must\nreduce the supposed ~advantage~_ of the _dreaded_ competition:\n\nFifthly, that the liberty of exporting corn, even under its present\nrestrictions, makes, as it were, of all _Europe_, at this day, _only_\none family; that, on the whole, there is constantly as much of that\nindispensable commodity as is necessary for all the family; but that\na man whose folly would be to trace out, describe, and acknowledge,\nthroughout every thing that concerns society in any essential point, the\nstamp of an universal benevolence, determined to unite all men together\nby their wants and interests if it is impossible to do it by more\ndisinterested motives, would not prove too inconsistent in a fit of that\nfolly which might induce him to suspect some marks of that stamp, even\nin the bad seasons, in the storms which successively visit all the parts\nof the world, make them all sensible of the necessity of such union,\nand soon bring nearly upon a level, all the different prices of that\nindispensable commodity, the cultivation of which requires, almost every\nwhere, the same labour, or which, by its quantity, always answers, upon\nan average, to the labour bestowed upon it:\n\nSixthly and in fine, that hence results the impossibility that there\nshould long subsist, in the prices of any thing, a difference capable of\nmaking any competition whatever, formidable _to any man who will not be\nso unjust as to wish and ask beads of gold for beads of glass, or, in\nother words, to try in bartering, to obtain the labour of 150 in exchange\nfor that of 100 only_.\n\nLet us suppose, nevertheless, that there should exist at this day, a\nnation pretending to be formidable in her competition, and who should\nonly be, in fact, remarkable for her folly, that is to say, a nation so\nvery blind, as to endeavour to keep the price of her wheat under that of\nall other countries; I agree that the labour of her artisans would be\nrated in consequence, and that the produce of her industry might thus\nbe purchased at a lower rate than that of any other nation:\u2014but what\nadvantage could she derive from thence in a competition abroad?\u2e3aThough\nshe should denominate at home the sum of her exports, only _one million_\nfor instance, because she would call 100, the quantity of wheat, which\nelsewhere would be called 150, how could she require less for her\nreturns than the other countries, who, by the price of their wheat,\nwould be compelled to call 1,500,000 that which she herself would call\n1,000,000?\u2014Would not this million represent, as really, the labour of\n75,000 of her workmen (their families included), as if it were by her\ndenominated 1,500,000_l._?\u2014Besides, the place where she has carried her\ngoods is not the end of her voyage; and it is so much more necessary\nfor her to obtain in return the produce of 75,000 labourers (families\nincluded), adequate to what she herself has given, as being obliged to\ncarry those returns home, where every thing sells, in the _hypothesis_,\n50 _per cent._ below the price they would fetch any where else, she\nwould lose in lowering the rates of her exports, all the fruit she might\nexpect to reap from her voyage.\u2014This is what escapes observation. They\nsee nothing but money in commercial operations, instead of observing\nthat all the nations in _Europe_, neither do nor can require, and that\n_England_ herself does not preserve more of it than _the sum necessary\nto answer those five articles_ of which I have spoken in examining her\nbalance: I shall in the sequel bring some proofs, in addition to those I\nhave already given; but I think I have said enough here, to justify me\nin _insisting_, that the competition can be dreaded by the unjust man\nalone, by that man who wishes to sell the labour of 100 workmen as if\nit were the labour of 150, and by that man, not less unreasonable, who,\ncompelled to sell his own goods 10 _per cent._ dearer, should refuse to\npay also 10 _per cent._ dearer for the foreign goods which he would ask\nin exchange.\u2014If that principle\u2014a principle of the strictest justice, is\nstill unknown in _Europe_; as an _American_, I glory that it is not so in\n_America_.\n\n\n\n\n_Reflexions on a Letter from ~Philadelphia~, inserted in the ~English~\nNews-papers._\n\n\nA Merchant of _Philadelphia_ offers to his former _Jamaica_\ncorrespondents, (see _Morning Chronicle_ and _London Advertiser_ of June\n24, 1785) to serve them, with all such articles as they may require, at\nthe current price of _Philadelphia_, only with the addition of freight\nand the usual commission. In order to render his proposal unequivocal,\nhe mentions staves, and makes a calculation, by which it appears that\nhe could not land them in _Jamaica_ for less than 12_l._ 19_s._ 1\u00bd_d._\ncurrency per thousand; he then adds:\n\n\u201cBy this calculation it appears, that staves would come considerably\nhigher than they used to be in _Jamaica_ before the war: it is true they\nare so, but it is owing to their being risen at _Philadelphia_ nearly 100\n_per cent._ Of _course_, _Jamaica_ prices must be in proportion; _for it\nwould be unreasonable_ to expect goods of _Jamaica_ at the old prices,\nwhen those of _America_ have advanced so considerably.\u201d\n\nI shall venture upon some remarks on the foregoing proposition.\n\nFirst, The _Philadelphian_ has sense enough to feel, that the war must\nadvance the price of goods from the Colonies, in a due proportion to the\ngeneral increase in prices of all that is carried there. In _Europe_,\non the contrary, people are not only strangers to the idea of that\nuniversal chain, but they are so convinced, or rather so persuaded,\nthat _the Colonies were created, and do actually exist, for the sole\npleasure and interest of their respective metropolises_, that no\nimaginable means are spared to lessen the price of their products in the\nmother country who receives them, in order that _this tender mother_\nmay sell them at a cheaper rate in the foreign markets; but, ye mother\ncountries! your colonists are also your children, foreigners are only\nyour brethren.\u2014It must be owned, however, that the coffee, indigo, and\ncottons, of _Jamaica_, _Grenada_, _Guadaloupe_, _St. Domingo_, &c. are\nno more the _territorial commodities_ of _England_, and of _France_,\nthan the corn and other productions of those two kingdoms; and that the\narguments adduced in regard to the colonies, are, as _Montaigne_ says,\n_of a piece_ with that by which they prove, that, THE CHEAPER THE CORN,\nTHE MORE BRILLIANT IS THE COMMERCIAL COMPETITION.\u2014_Were not Nature by\nher underhand work constantly fighting, with some advantage, against the\ndreams of speculators, to what pitch of misery would not agriculture be\nreduced in all parts of the world!_\n\nSecondly, War has been productive, in the United States of _America_, of\nthe same effects which attend it every where else, viz. an augmentation\nin the price of every thing.\n\nThirdly, The increase of nearly _cent. per cent._ assigned to the\nstaves, does not determine the general advance of _American_ goods;\nthe excessive, but instantaneous price of one article only, denotes an\nextraordinary demand for that object, and the actual impossibility of\nanswering that demand; the level, so necessary in all prices, naturally\nreturns as soon as the medium of the demand is known, and has determined\nthe number of hands necessary to supply it: now it cannot be doubted, but\nthat the goods in _America_ must have advanced in price, much more than\nany where else, because the expences of the Colonies have been, during\nthe war, relatively speaking, much more considerable than any where else,\nconsidering the discredit inseparable from the precariousness of their\nsituation. But the difference between their inland _common_ prices, and\nthose of _Europe_, was so great (this will presently be seen), that they\nmay increase them enough to pay off the interest of their national debt,\nand yet keep the _European_ prices at a distance.\n\nFourthly, The United States are now a foreign nation in regard to\n_Jamaica_, which belongs to _England_; yet this consideration does not\nrender them so far unjust, as to shake off the burden of their taxes,\nand fix it on the inhabitants of _Jamaica_; they only make them nominal\npartners in that burden, (if the expression may be allowed), without any\ninconvenience arising therefrom to either of the parties.\n\nFifthly, They have the true notion of an equitable trade, founded on the\ncontinuation of former relations between goods and goods; a principle\nfrom which I only draw inferences relative to the national debt, and\nwhich suffices to destroy all the _hideousness_ of that phantom.\n\nSixthly, They do not pretend, with the _Europeans_, that the increase in\nthe national prices, can in any thing affect their exportation; but they\nhave found, that being obliged to sell dearer, it was their duty to offer\nvery frankly to pay also dearer for whatever they wanted in return.\n\nSeventhly, They do not entertain the least doubt on what _seems_ to be\nunknown in _Europe_, namely, that the real benefit of a voyage can be\nfound only in the price which the returns will meet with, when arrived\nin the country where the voyage is to terminate.\n\nEighthly, In the union, and in the execution of these different points,\ncenters the little mystery, by means of which Nature has hitherto filled\nup by slow degrees, and by which the _American_ proposes, without\nthinking so to do, to fill up with more dispatch, those little _furrows_\nof taxes, the very name of which is now a bugbear, but would cease to\nbe so, if the manner in which they are planned, imposed, and above all,\ncollected, did not prolong and increase the real and momentary evil,\nwhich will ever be inseparable from them.\n\nNinthly, It is singular enough, that the _European_ cultivator should be\ntaught by the _American_ trader, _the necessity and the justice_ of an\nincrease of price in the _productions_ of the earth, _proportionable_,\nsays the honest _Philadelphian_, _to that which is to be met with in the\nprice of the productions of industry_:\u2014_It would be unreasonable_, says\nhe, _to expect the goods of ~Jamaica~ at the old prices, when those of\n~Philadelphia~ have advanced so considerably_.\u2014Nay, say the _European_\nmanufacturers, since our goods, by means of the taxes, have increased\n10 _per cent._ it follows necessarily that the price of wheat, sugar,\nindigo, &c. should fall in the same proportion, in order _that the trade\nin competition may be supported abroad;\u2014had not Nature, by her underhand\nwork, constantly fought with some advantage against the dreams of\nspeculators, and against the much more dreadful surreptions of cupidity,\nto what pitch of misery would not agriculture be reduced in all parts of\nthe world!_\n\nThe following estimates may be of some service; their utility is\nindependent of the absolute precision of the facts on which they are\nfounded; one may, as occasion requires, extend or contract the compasses.\n\nPrevious to the last war the common price of wheat was, upon an average,\nin _America_ about 20_s._ sterling _per_ quarter, (vide Mr. _A. Young\u2019s\nPolitical Arithmetic_).\n\nIf in _England_ a population of 9,000,000 of industrious inhabitants,\nyields a landed revenue of 60,000,000_l._ sterling, the wheat being\nthere at 40_s._ _per_ quarter, a population of 3,000,000 of industrious\ninhabitants in _America_, where wheat sells at 20_s._ a quarter, ought\nto produce _at least_ a landed revenue of 10,000,000_l._ sterling; I\nsay _at least_, first, because the land is new, and produces as much,\nwith less culture; and secondly, because that part of the inhabitants\nemployed in agriculture in _England_, constitute only one third of the\nwhole population, and that in all probability, above two thirds of the\n_Americans_ are employed in works of husbandry. It may therefore be\npresumed, that their landed revenue exceeds 20,000,000, instead of the\n10 which I have set down; but this surplus of 10,000,000, only serves to\nmake good both the national and foreign industry, which is to balance\nit, and pay off the taxes: so that, in whatever light my _thesis_ be\nconsidered, every error turns to their advantage.\n\nIn limiting their landed revenue to 10,000,000, their wheat remaining at\n20_s._ _per_ quarter; let everyone judge what load of taxes they could\nbear, before the price of their wheat and other territorial productions,\nshould come up to that of the same commodities of _Europe_, even\nincluding the expences for the export of their surplusage.\n\nLet every one judge also of the necessity of their bankruptcy, the idea\nof which has been so fondly cherished by some low-minded people, and the\nnarrative of which, they feared perhaps themselves, would unavoidably\nstain the first pages of the history of their political existence.\n\nThe last war, it is said, has loaded them with an interest of 1,000,000\n_per annum_. Would a tax of 10 _per cent._ on every article, or rather\non the total of the produce of national, as well as foreign industry,\n_consumed within the country_, be productive of any other effect, but\nthat of increasing the prices nearly as much? and would the cultivators\nof wheat and other productions of the earth, have occasion for any other\nexpedient to pay the tax, _without being at any expence, without any one\nbeing aggrieved, (provided they should raise in the same proportion\nthe price of labour attending cultivation)_ but that of advancing, in\nthe mean time, the price of their wheat, and other productions of the\nearth, from 10 to 11 or 12, from 20 to 22 or 24?\u2014This is the case in my\nfirst _hypothesis_, with this difference, that the 21,000,000 interest,\nmentioned therein, represented highways, havens, canals, public schools,\n&c. and that the interest of 1,000,000, in the United States, will\nrepresent the establishment of their independence. Such a monument is,\nin my opinion, too precious to admit a thought of destroying it by a\nreimbursement,\u2014_a reimbursement palpably useless so soon as the price of\nevery thing is restored to a level with the interest of any national loan\nwhatever_.\n\nThey have committed some errors; more will follow: they know not what to\nfix upon; nor will they know for some time, perhaps for a long time.\u2014Is\nthere a State in _Europe_ that can reproach them with any false step, of\nwhich that very same State did not set the precedent at some period of\nits history?\u2e3aBut with their principle concerning exportation, a principle\nfounded on justice and evidence, they have already perceived that the\nnecessitated price of 22 or 24, instead of 20, must be felt in their\ncountry alone; and if their commodities exported for the purpose of\nprocuring such articles for their home consumption, as they stand in need\nof, continue still to yield them the same quantity of those articles of\nconsumption, as were obtained before the war, will they not perceive that\nthe home prices, which the re-action of the taxes shall have set upon the\nwhole of their productions, establish in the country an exact balance of\nthose new prices at which the taxes will oblige them to sell the articles\nto be imported?\n\nCompelled by necessity to have recourse to paper-money, will it be long\nbefore they are made sensible, that nothing more than internal credit is\nwanted to make this paper equal to coin, and answer all its purposes for\never, if they should be thus wisely inclined,\u2014if this measure should be\nfound the only means of curbing effectually the cupidity of those with\nwhom they shall have occasion to trade?\n\nWill it be long before they perceive, that this credit will follow close\nupon the solidity of public engagements,\u2014a solidity demonstrated by the\nevidence of the inutility of a base and infamous robbery?\n\nWill it be long before they feel that all the actual wealth of a State,\nits real wealth, is nothing more or less than the mass of its present\nindustry; that all its _possible_ wealth can arise only from the sum\nof all its _possible_ labour; that the greatest riches are only the\ngreatest sum of labour? that if this labour is a bitter pill, the gold\nand silver in which it is wrapped up, are only (like honours, titles,\ndignities, fame, esteem, &c.) different kinds of powders, which sweeten\nthe taste of it to those who are ignorant of its value, to those who know\nnot how necessary labour is to support every day, without being weary,\nand sometimes without regret, the wretched burthen of our lives; and\nin fine, that paper, _once got into credit_, can, in this respect, be\nan ample substitute for gold and silver ... but how many circumstances,\nwhere gold and silver cannot supply the want of credit?\n\nWill it be long before they become sensible, that they are clogged in\nno part of their legislation, by those preposterous maxims which can\nbe justified only by the circumstances that gave them birth, by those\ntyrannical regulations which owed their success wholely to the ignorance\nof their cotemporaries, by that chaos of contradictory regulations,\nall of which became perhaps necessary by degrees, after the first was\nextorted by cupidity?[6]\n\n\n\n\n_Under what Point of View Premiums and other Encouragements of\nExportation may be considered._\n\n\nThe principles of the _Americans_ concerning exportation, lead us to the\nexamination of the doctrine of premiums.\n\nIf the want of objects, capable of exercising advantageously the industry\nof a numerous and active people, should compel government, _on account\nof some difficulties unconquerable by art and nature_, to apply that\nindustry to some other object, on which it would be impossible to support\nabroad the competition of another nation, that is, to offer equally with\nthe latter an even quantity of labour of one sort, for an even quantity\nof labour of a different one, there is no doubt but, in such a case,\na certain premium, to maintain the competition with the country most\npartially favoured by art and nature, would prove, of all institutions,\nthe most judicious and the most humane; it would be a kind of indirect\ntax in favour of laborious indigence; a tax, much more eligible than\nmany others, which, though destined to the relief of wretchedness, often\nincrease it, by checking the efforts of industry, by even providing a\nresource for idleness, and sometimes an alluring, a comfortable prospect\nfor debauchery.\n\nIt was represented to a Prince truly worthy of the throne he fills,\nthat a manufactory, in which 8 or 900 persons were constantly employed,\nstood him in 4 or 5,000 crowns more than it produced. _How!_ (replied\nthe Sovereign) _does it cost me no more than 4 or 5,000 crowns to feed a\nthousand beggars, and keep them constantly at work? It is a cheap bargain\nindeed!_ The most subtle of all ministers of state could make no other\nreply to such an answer, than to propose some means, equally effectual,\nand calculated to attain, at a cheaper rate, the two most important ends\nthat a prince can have in view, _destroying beggary, and_, in a manner,\n_creating labour_.\n\nThere are, no doubt, some other circumstances, which may also justify\npremiums on exportation; for instance, the wheat intended for\nexportation, is an indispensable article amongst the necessaries of life:\nit constitutes one third, sometimes the half of a nation\u2019s riches; it is\n_essential_ that it be not in such quantity as to fall in price, because\nthe disparagement of its value would discourage the cultivator; yet it is\nadvantageous that there should be, upon a medium, a little more than is\nwanted, in order to keep it at the medium price it ought to fetch, that\n_one may have it in his power to purchase that which another wants to\nsell_. The first thing therefore to be examined is, whether the medium\nprice, at which it must be kept, in order to equipoise the quantity of\nnational industry which it must represent, be not so considerable,\n\nFirst, By reason of some prohibitory act, forbidding the exportation of\nother productions of the earth, which, by this means, become cheaper than\nthey were before this act took place, oblige the cultivator to advance\nhis price in the others, that the whole may be raised to the level of\nindustry:\n\nSecondly, By reason of some other premiums on exportation, granted to\nvarious branches of the national industry, which, on that very account,\nare grown not only much dearer within the nation, but have also enhanced\nthe price of all other corresponding commodities, by withdrawing from\nthem, hands which would have increased their quantity:\n\nThirdly, In consequence of some prohibitions or restrictions equivalent\nthereto, which afford to the national manufacturer the means of selling\nhis goods 10 _per cent._ dearer than he could do, if such reasonable\nduties were laid upon foreign industry, as would leave national industry\nin possession of the advantages, which she has a right to, and deprive\nher only of the iniquitous privilege of ransoming those by whom she is\nfostered:\n\nFourthly, By the effect of those bodies corporate, (_corporations_)\nwhich, if justly appreciated, are but so many private conspiracies\nagainst the public, whom they strip of the benefit of _national_\ncompetition, after having wrested from them the advantages of _foreign_\ncompetition, which would soon have been followed by the former,\n_infinitely more important than the other_.\n\nIf the result of the proposed enquiry should show, that one of these\nfour causes, or rather all of them together, have entirely perverted the\nnatural price of every article in the nation, it seems to me that it\nwould be worth the attention of the legislature to examine also, whether\nthe repeal of all premiums, prohibitions, restrictions, and other devices\nof the various passions of the human heart, either to clash against each\nother, or to balance their respective injustice, would not prove adequate\nto the only aim which we may reasonably wish to attain, I mean that of\n_keeping, at the least expence, a just equilibrium between national\nagriculture and industry, by securing to both, at the least expence, all\nthe advantages which they have a right to expect from the agriculture and\nindustry of other nations_.\n\nBut if indeed we were fettered by the errors of past centuries, it would\nthen be necessary to grant, _in the fullest extent_, the wished-for\npremium on the most important article; do nothing more for the present,\nbut refuse new ones to all the rest; watch attentively the favourable\nminute for the restoration of natural order, and forward it, perhaps, by\nconvincing every one, that the most necessary of all premiums would have\nproved useless, had it not been preceded by prohibitions, restrictions,\ncorporations, &c. _the end of which is as manifestly unjust, as their\neffects are injurious to all but those who sue for them_; and that, in\nfine, a premium granted under a circumstance the most likely to justify\nsuch a measure, is not, as several people have hitherto imagined, a\nnecessary means of maintaining elsewhere a foreign competition, but a\nvery inadequate compensation for that foreign competition of which we are\ndeprived in so many respects.\n\n\n\n\n_On the Influence of the various Kinds of Taxation upon National Prices._\n\n\nIf I mistake not, I have proved that it is indifferent to agriculture\nand industry, whether the prices rise or fall, provided it be always in\na due and reciprocal proportion. Nor is it less indifferent, whether the\nincrease proceeds from taxes, from monopoly, or from accession of wealth,\nand whether the decrease be brought about by the extirpation of monopoly,\nor by the triumph of smuggling; so long as the prices balance each other,\nno one can be injured however loud people may be in their clamours; it\nis impossible to shut one\u2019s eyes against the evidence of such a point.\nWhy then should we deny the consequence which naturally follows, of the\nharmlessness of taxes in themselves, the impossibility of their producing\nin any one\u2019s situation, any thing beyond a momentary sensation, _when\nthey are laid with discernment_; and the futility of either fears or\nhopes entertained of their ending at last in a national bankruptcy?\n\nYet, \u201cto enjoy, is to obey,\u201d says Pope:\u2014To make the best use we can of\nthe creation, is the thanksgiving the most worthy of the Creator.\u2014There\nis not a man therefore who ought not to repine at seeing the general rate\nof prices increase in vain, since this very rise compels us to lavish,\nin coin, a considerable quantity of those two precious metals, gold and\nsilver, which would prove more agreeable, if turned into plate, or even\ninto small pocket-statues, designed for the private worship of those\nwho would blush only in public, for this kind of idolatry. I should\nlike therefore to examine, in regard to prices, what is _natural_, what\n_necessary_, and what _forced_; in order to find out what might be saved,\nif people would attend only to the necessary average.\n\nIn the first period of Societies, when they knew of no other want in\nthe State but personal service when it was necessary and possible, the\ncommon price of the articles then in circulation, was determined by\nthe quantity of coin _then_ existing in the nation: this is what may\nbe justly termed the _natural price_. At this present time, when money\nis substituted to personal service, and supplies so advantageously its\nplace; when each representation of an extra service leaves on every\narticle, the stamp of a seal, which, without adding to the real or\nrelative value of _any thing_, increases nevertheless the nominal value\nof _every thing_;\u2014at this present time, when every nation has all the\nindustry necessary to procure the coin wanted for this over-charge,\n_it is the price, which this very over-charge sets upon the different\nobjects, that regulates and attracts the quantity of silver to correspond\ntherewith_; and this price, which may be called _necessary_, is often\nevidently _forced_: I say, _evidently_, because, in the state of general\ncorrespondence, or, if you will, of that happy dependence wherein all\nthe States of _Europe_ stand reciprocally towards each other at this\nhour, when we see in one country the same objects, of the same quality,\nwrought with equal skill, 15 _per cent._ dearer than any where else, who\ncan doubt but a part of that difference, of that extraordinary price,\nproceeds from taxes, and the other from monopoly? But what part belongs\nto this, what part to the other? This is not so easily found out; 1st,\nbecause the part which is the work of monopoly, solely depends on the\nmoderation of the monopolist, who never fails pleading the taxes for\nexcuse; and, 2dly, because that part, which proceeds from the taxes,\ndepends not only on the tax itself, but also on the manner of laying\nit, and on the effect which it is likely to produce in the minds of the\npeople who are to support it. Such a tax as will make a slow, and only a\ntrifling sensation in the prices of the _French_ markets, will occasion\nall at once a considerable one in those of _England_: I shall hereafter\nstate my reasons for this conjecture.\n\nI am as little qualified to investigate all these different questions, as\nthose which I have ventured hitherto to touch upon; I shall persevere,\nnevertheless, with that freedom which I derive from the purity of my\nintentions, and with that diffidence which must follow the consciousness\nof a capacity so unequal to the task.\u2014I shall first of all adapt to\n_England_, and then to _France_, the reflexions suggested to me by some\nhundreds of suppositions, which had engrossed my time before I had\nperused _Young\u2019s Political Arithmetic_, and the work of Mr. _Necker_,\nwhich has but lately fallen into my hands.\n\nI shall begin with a general observation on taxes.\n\n\n\n\n_On the Object of all Ministers of Finance in laying Taxes._\n\n\nIn this indulgent age, wherein nothing more is required on any one\nsubject, than a little decency, it would be a ridiculous and fruitless\nhypocrisy to propose a tax, as the means of encouraging virtue, or of\ndiscountenancing vice; it is not, at least in a country where a man\nconvicted of smuggling wool, is by law sentenced to have his hand cut\noff, nor in another where a smuggler of salt is condemned for years to\nserve on board the gallies, that one should preach up the heart-felt\nconcern he must experience at framing a law which would make it felony to\ndrink spirituous liquors if he had really a mind to prevent intoxication;\nit is hoped on the contrary, nay, firmly believed, that the sweetness of\nthe poison will make palatable the very bitterness of the tax, and its\nabsurd disproportion to the real value of the taxed article: besides, it\nis too evident, that it is not the difference of a few pence _more_ that\nwill prevent a man from drinking to excess when he is so inclined, nor a\nfew pence _less_ that will occasion another to inebriate himself, when\nhis only motive for drinking is a moderate pleasure, or the necessity of\nallaying his thirst. The object of every Minister, in laying a tax, is\nalways to procure the sum at which he has rated its produce; if the tax\nshould answer any other purpose, this additional one is considered merely\nwith regard to the prospect it affords of making good another tax less\nproductive than was at first expected. In fact, a minister of finance is\nnot a _pr\u00e6fectus morum_\u2014a moral censor: the State is in want of a certain\nsum; _that\u2019s enough, it must be found_.\u2014Let us then examine, what kind of\ntaxation will be the least burdensome in its operation, give its first\nshock with the least violence, and be attended with inconveniences of the\nshortest duration.\n\n\n\n\n_Effects of a general Poll-Tax._\n\n\n_Eleventh Hypothesis._\n\nIn the year 1779, the taxes in _England_ amounted, I shall say, to 10\nmillions; I shall suppose too, that this was the tenth part of the\ngeneral produce of the land and industry: therefore the 10th part of\nthe nominal value of that _general produce_ belonged to the tax, or was\n_necessitated by the tax_; the 40 shillings, which, to facilitate my\noperations, I shall also suppose to be the average price of the quarter\nof wheat, must then have been considered as the _necessary_ price, or\nthe price _necessitated_ by the tax, and 36_s._ as the _natural_ price,\nor the price _acquired_ by the sole, _natural_ increase of the national\nwealth. But in order that those 36_s._ might be called the _natural_\nprice, the taxes should have been divided in such a manner as to load\neach particular article with a 9th part of its value; that is to say,\nthat each individual, possessed of a property denominated 9, should\nsee it charged only with one ninth more, in consequence of a general\npoll-tax, which we shall suppose to have been assessed _with the utmost\nimpartiality_. In effect, it appears, that in this case the proprietor\nof a quarter of wheat, who, in consequence of the tax, would have raised\nthe wheat from 36 to 40_s._ could not be said to have injured the hatter,\nwho would sell him for 40 guineas the 40 hats which, previously to the\npoll-tax, he used to let him have for 36 guineas. It also appears, that\nthe hatter could not be injured by giving 10 to the workman, instead of\nthe 9 which he had hitherto paid; and that, in fine, _if 27 millions had\nproved sufficient for circulation formerly, three millions more, once\nfound, were fully adequate to the annual and perpetual payment of those\n10 millions of taxes_, without any one being a sufferer, but at the\ninstant of the first payment. This system is deficient only in point\nof practicability; it is not established in _England_: 36 shillings\ntherefore are not the _natural_ price of wheat; the wheat certainly owes\nabove 4 shillings to the taxes, if its current price amounts to 40_s._\n\nLet it be observed, nevertheless, that if the system of a poll-tax could\nbe reduced to practice, if it were not of all systems the most absurd,\nthough the easiest for government, if it were not of all systems that\nin which it is most evidently impossible to avoid thousands of injuries\nto the subject, one might establish now in _England_ a new tax of 10\nmillions annually, and pay it for ever, without altering in the least the\ncondition of anybody, _provided one could find previously, and once for\nall, 2,600,000l. and that wheat should advance in price from 40s. to 43s.\n4d. AND EVERY THING ELSE IN PROPORTION_. This appears to me so glaringly\nevident, that it extorts from me the affirmative tone. Now as soon as\nthis should be effected, THE BURDEN OF THE TAX WOULD CLEARLY BE NULL.\n\nBut, it will be objected, the price of wheat is not thus arbitrarily\nadvanced:\u2014certainly not; for were this to be the case, it might also\nbe lowered at pleasure, and would _every other day_, alternately rise\nfrom 1 to 80_s._ and fall from 80 to 1, since for this operation (become\nindispensable) it would suffice that there should be in all the provinces\nof _England_ as many bodies-corporate (_corporations_) in _agriculture_,\nas there are in _industry_. I am even inclined to think, that it would\nthen be minutely examined, _Whether it be in fact advantageous to\nagriculture, that the merchants export more goods than they import?_ (a\ndue attention being paid to the five articles so often mentioned, which\nrender necessary the importation of bullion); a question of the utmost\nimportance, to which I do not see that any body has hitherto attended,\nand which might be so easily determined, if my principles are just.\n\n\n\n\n_Effects of a Land-Tax._\n\n\n_All taxes, it is said, fall on the land at last. Land is the true, the\nonly spring of wealth; wealth should be taxed at its very source._\n\nIt is certain, that merely by knowing how the matter stands, we know how\nto proceed accordingly; and that, in the long-run, every thing arranges\nitself in the least exceptionable manner that the system of taxation will\npermit. The following is probably the course which things would take, in\nthe system of a land-tax, if it were necessary now to lay on the land a\nnew tax of 10 millions annually, supposing always the landed revenue at\n60 millions, and the quarter of wheat at 40 shillings.\n\n\n_Twelfth Hypothesis._\n\n_(I must premise, that in all I have now to say, not only on the present\nhypothesis, but on all those that follow, I build on this principle;\n~that, from the moment every individual pays the tax~, nobody pays it;\n~that nevertheless its produce reverts to the creditors of the State, and\nthat therefore every body is interested in carrying matters to that issue\nas soon as possible~.\u2014If there never existed in the average of prices any\nrevolution so sudden, so great, and constant in its effect, as the one\nwhich I am about to suppose; it is because it never was necessary to lay\nall at once 10 millions of taxes. The effect produced by one million on\na revenue like that which ~England~ enjoys, is so trifling, so gradual,\nthat it never can be felt.\u2014But to my hypothesis)._\n\nThe march of industry is always firm; she can never be bewildered by\nher guide. A tax of 2 shillings upon a hat will soon occasion either an\nalteration in the quality, or a proportionate increase in its price[7].\n_Nothing more just._ But agriculture has only one resource; she cannot\nalter the quality of her productions, and she is always timid when she\nwants to increase their prices. Let it be granted, however, that the\nfirst attempt of the cultivator will be to enhance boldly the price of\nhis goods, in a proportion which may return him the amount of the tax\nsupposed to be of 10 millions: his wheat, of course, will rise from 40 to\n46_s._ 8_d._ and so with regard to other productions; then his revenue,\ninstead of 60, will be 70 millions; but, being obliged to lay down 10 for\nthe tax, he will have only 60 millions left.\n\nLet us now observe, that when the operations of agriculture are talked\nof in consequence of taxes, the land proprietor is alluded to; and from\nhim they suppose that the ten millions are taken, just as the fleece is\nshorn from the sheep; but, on the other hand, that proprietor, though not\nvery clear in his idea of what is best for him to do, feels mechanically\nthat he has a right to defend his fleece, that is, to increase the\nprice of the productions of his land, because without them, neither the\nmanufacturer nor the Minister of Finance can subsist, and to raise that\nprice to such a level as will subject him to pay only just as much as the\nminister and the manufacturer: and _this again appears to me extremely\njust_.\n\nNow this very proprietor receives of his 60 millions revenue, or rather\nof the revenue of his land, no more than about 20 millions; (this is\nnearly the result of Mr. _Young_\u2019s statement: it will be seen, in\nthe sequel, that more or less would only alter the proportion of the\nshares, without having the least influence either on the application\nof the principle, or on its consequences): the 40 millions overplus is\nswallowed up, _viz._ for the daily pay of the labourer, 20 millions, and\n20 millions for the other charges with which the estates are encumbered,\ntythes, profits of farmers, &c. &c. It follows, of course,\n\n_Either_\n\nThat the proprietor\u2019s share must be advanced to 30 millions, if he alone\nbe taxed; and this will leave each of the other parts interested in the\nlanded revenue, in possession of its 20 millions, as well after as before\nthe tax;\n\n_Or_,\n\nThat each of the three parts taxed singly, at 3,333,333_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._\nand enabled to pay the impost by an advance of price, both in the\nproductions and in the wages of labour, be reduced to its primitive 20\nmillions, after the payment of the tax.\n\nOne is evidently equal to the other; but what is not so, is, that\n_industry_, who paid her workmen with 20 millions when the quarter of\nwheat was at 40_s._ cannot pay them since the wheat is increased to\n46_s._ 8_d._ but by adding to the former wages, 3,333,333_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._\nan advance which, when divided on the total of her products, heretofore\nrated at 60 millions, raises each third part of 20 to 21,111,111, and\nsome trifling fractions.\u2014Now, there remains in the hands of each of the\nparties concerned in agriculture, only 20 millions over and above the\npayment of the tax.\u2014Those who are in the persuasion that the discharge\nof the import must lessen, by its whole amount at least, the revenue of\nthose who pay it, think, no doubt, that agriculture is very well off, to\nhave, by raising the price of its commodities two thirds, lightened the\nweight of so terrible a burden; yet if it were possible by a vigorous\nexertion, by an additional increase in the price of provisions, to make\nit null to every body, I do not see that it would be reasonable to oppose\nsuch exertion; for, after all,\n\n_Either_\n\nThe first increase, brought on by _agriculture_, was unjust; the\nproprietor was doomed to sustain alone the whole weight of the tax, if\nwe allow _the taxator_, the man who laid the tax, to have had a single\nthought on the subject:\n\n_Or_,\n\nThe further advance in the prices of agriculture is of the most\nindispensable necessity, if the _taxator_ has only thought of getting the\namount of the tax with the least trouble to himself, leaving to Nature\nthe care of distributing _to every one_ complete justice,\u2014to Nature, who\nnever fails to do it, and who, in so complicated an operation, employs\nonly the simple spring of that private cupidity, with which she has armed\nand shielded every individual; just as, in order to settle the most exact\nsymmetry in that admirable edifice commonly called a hive, she employs\nno other agent than the reciprocal _pressure_ of that multitude of\narchitects who work at it, each of whom thinks of nothing but to secure a\nlittle cell for himself.\n\n\n_Thirteenth Hypothesis._\n\nLet us then suppose that agriculture, judiciously determined by wisdom\nnot to suffer the least encroachments on any part of her _cell_, or\nmechanically led by cupidity to justice, boldly raises the price of her\nwheat from 40 to 50_s._ and the rest of her products in a due proportion;\nher general revenues will then be increased from 60 to 75 millions;\neach of the three parts interested therein will therefore stand at 25\nmillions, but will be reduced to 21,666,666_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ when the tax\nis paid off;\u2014\n\nIndustry, compelled also by the advanced prices of the productions\nof the earth, to pay her workmen 25 instead of the 20 millions which\nthey required in the first instance, will divide the additional 5\nmillions amongst the 60 millions of her former returns; each third share\ntherefore, rated hitherto at 20 millions, will, by means of the addition,\nrise to 21,666,666_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._\u2014_which is the exact balance of the\nlike sum left in the hands of each of the three branches of agriculture,\nafter having discharged the tax_.\n\nIn a system of taxation which should be imposed only on the land, an\nimpost of 10 millions annually, on a revenue of 60 millions, whether\nit fall on the proprietor, or be divided between him, the farmer, the\ncultivator, and other parties concerned, requires of course an addition\nof 25 _per cent._ to the price of the productions of the earth, that\nagriculture may not be sacrificed to industry; but it must be observed,\nthat immediately after the reaction of the one upon the other shall be\ncompleted, the burden of the tax will evidently be _null_, since _the\nprice of labour will have increased equally in both, in proportion to\nthat of their respective products_.\n\n\n\n\n_Reflexions on the foregoing System._\n\n\nThis system was devised to countenance and encourage agriculture; it\nis in her hands, they say, it is at that fountain-head of riches, that\nriches must be sought for; it is the land that finally pays for all; the\nimpost then must be laid on the net produce of the land.\u2014I shall venture\nsome reflexions on a subject which appears to me the more important, as\none of the wisest, and the most profound speeches ever delivered in the\nHouse of Lords, seems to hint at the expediency of an aggravation of the\nburden already laid on agriculture.\n\nAgriculture is the spring of life; it is not the spring of those riches\nwhich we call money: money must be had for taxes; money flows from the\nhands of industry alone: it is then from this spring that money must be\ndrawn.\n\nBesides, how is it known that the money, wrested from agriculture, is\nnot necessary to her support? Or how does it escape observation, that\nall the money which is not laid out by the cultivator upon agriculture,\nwill necessarily revert to industry, either by the immediate consumption\nof the cultivator, or by that which he shall have occasioned on the part\nof the person to whom he shall have lent the value of what he has not\nconsumed himself?\n\nHow comes it to be known, that the proprietor of a landed estate that\nyields him, we shall suppose, 800_l._ _per annum_, and who is charged\n200_l._ for taxes, is not indebted in 300_l._ out of the remaining\n600_l._? Now, it is true that 300_l._ are sufficient for his support; but\nwere those 200_l._ which are forced from him, laid out annually on his\nland, they would certainly in very few years raise its produce from 800\nto 1000_l._\u2014What is that but to assess unjustly a man who enjoys only\n500_l._ as high as another whose income amounts to 800_l._\u2014to tie down\nagriculture to 800 when it might rise to 1000; to deprive industry of the\nre-action produced by that benefit; to crush population in the very bud,\nand consequently to prevent a more considerable consumption; in fine, to\ndeprive government beforehand of the amount of those taxes which that\nincrease of population and consumption would have secured to the State?\n\nIt may be said in _France_, it is true, that by a tax laid on private\nloan-covenants, those inconveniences are partly removed; but this very\nremoval is only an additional obstacle, thrown in the way of agriculture,\nto impede its progress;\u2014the man who could lend to the cultivator, besides\nthe fear of not receiving back his money when wanted, has before his\neyes the certainty of being charged with the twentieth penny laid on\nthe interest of the money thus advanced, and consequently, as often as\nhe conveniently can, lends that money to a merchant, who besides his\npunctuality in paying at the fixed time, never hesitates to allow the\nusual interest without any deduction whatever.\n\nIt may be said also in _England_, that all over _Great Britain_, the\nland-tax, (which, like some others, is perhaps no more than a real\npoll-tax under a name less grating to a _British_ ear) does not exceed\nthe sum of about 2 millions out of 14 or 15, the whole amount of her\ntaxes; but nothing can be deduced therefrom, but that it is subject\nonly to a proportionable share of the inconveniences above stated;\ninconveniences which are inseparable from it: we may add, that it\nis indeed free from some further grievances which fall heavy on the\n_French_ cultivator:\u2014but can the _English_ boast of their tax being\nfounded on an invariable principle, when this very principle is unjust\nin its consequences, and, as often as necessity requires the tax to\nbe advanced, multiplies the injustice which follows it?\u2014Yet they hint\nat the expediency of increasing that very tax, in order to alleviate\nthe imaginary burden that weighs down industry!\u2014Some pretend that the\nland-tax is become a _public property_; they suppose that all such sales\nand purchases of land as have taken place since the year 1740, have\nbeen effected on that principle of renunciation of the capital, the\ninterest of which is paid by that land-tax:\u2014they infer, no doubt, that\nthe intention of those who did not sell, was implicitly included in that\nof those who have actually sold; for they propose that all the present\nproprietors shall redeem the tax, in order to refund part of the national\ndebt; as if, on the very next day after the redemption, Government had\nnot a right to renew it, if some fresh exigency should start, which\ncould not be answered by any other means.\n\nIn the critical moment of a discredit, which will always be imputable\nto the Minister, when the King and the People are fully acquainted with\ntheir real interest, if administration, not knowing what to do, does not\nhesitate to apply to the land proprietor, whose ways and means are always\nvisible, and whose purse lies, as it were, ever open against his own\ninclination, the Minister, no doubt, finds his excuse in the necessity;\nbut after the crisis is over, why should the proprietor be further\naggrieved?\n\nBut, say they, the amount of the tax cannot be dispensed with;\u2014no\nobjection can be urged against necessity; _all that is wanted, is the\nleast that can possibly be given; just as all that is wanted, is the\nmost that it can be advantageous to take_: but the whole should be paid\nby each individual, only in proportion to his faculties:\u2014Now the fact\nis, that the faculties of the land proprietors are not better known\nthan those of the merchants;\u2014_the latter have found means to prove, to\npersuade, that they ought not to be taxed, but in proportion to their\nconsumption, the only criterion of their riches_, or at least that part\nof their riches which they do not lay out in increasing commercial\nwealth.\u2014IS THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE TERRITORIAL WEALTH LESS ESSENTIAL, OR\nLESS VALUABLE TO THE STATE?\n\nLet us examine, however, in what degree the taxes laid on the different\narticles of consumption, must enhance the price of goods, in order that\nagriculture may not suffer more than industry. If it should result from\nthis research, that many previous false steps have raised the greatest\nobstacles against the execution of those measures which would prove\nthe most equitable, without being more disadvantageous in any point of\nview; the inconvenience of such obstacles might be deemed trifling, when\n_compared with the burden supposed to be transmitted to posterity_. And\nit is not in _England_ that an important truth, generally acknowledged,\nwill long remain without effect; it is not in _England_ that an important\ntruth will long remain without being generally acknowledged.\n\n\n\n\n_Effects of an Impost exclusively laid on the Articles of Consumption\npeculiar to the rich, or in other words, ~on Luxury~._\n\n\nThe immediate effect of a tax, is to raise the price of the object on\nwhich it is laid, by at least the whole amount of the tax: _nothing can\nbe more just_; but it is at the same time a consideration which ought\nto keep pace with the one I have already offered, on the very positive\n_object_ of all kinds of taxation, namely, _to secure the sum at which\nthe product of the impost is valued, whatever that sum may be_.\n\nNow, in order to estimate justly the system of taxation we are\nconsidering, it must be presented in all its glory, that is, such as\nall Ministers of finance in _Europe_ seem to wish it; such as all the\n_English_ news-papers recommend it, rather roughly, each of them at least\nonce a week; such as all Oppositions, past, present, and future, have\npretended, do pretend, and ever will pretend it to be, so easy and so\nequitable; such as all preachers of the _Roman_, _English_, _Jansenist_\nand _Presbyterian_ persuasion, are wont to deliver it every day among\nthe private societies whom they are pleased to honour with their partly\nchristian, partly political reflexions, and would speak it out from the\npulpit, if Ministers of finance had any leisure to hear their sermons,\n&c. I shall therefore suppose that the tax of 10 millions, mentioned\nin the three foregoing articles, should be assessed in so able, so\n_charitable_ a manner, that 5 millions should fall on the landlord, and\nthe other 5 on the richest proprietor of money. I shall begin with the\nmost essential, for the State is certainly founded on the landed property.\n\nWhat is the revenue of the land-proprietor?\u2e3aNothing more, all expences\ndefrayed, than the third part of the real produce of his lands; and this\nthird is, in the _hypothesis_, estimated at 20 millions only.\u2014These 20\nmillions finding in the hands of industry, that portion which usually\ngave the balance of those 20 millions, raised to 25 millions by means of\nthe tax, it clearly appears that the proprietor alluded to is short by 25\n_per cent._ of the sum required to pay that portion.\u2014In this case what is\nhe to do?\n\nShall he leave industry in possession of one fifth of his former\ncomforts?\u2014Then industry would be debarred from the sale of that fifth\npart; one fifth of its artificers would be left without any other\nresource than that which the highway might afford, _and the main object\nof the taxation would be defeated in the following year_, unless\nexportation should make up to industry for the want of home-consumption,\n(_the only one by which a State can prosper_,) and the _deficit_ of the\ntax laid on the home-consumption, should be compensated by another tax\non foreign consumption, that is _on the exports_.\n\nWe shall suppose this to be the case, and that industry actually exports\nthat fifth part of the national commodities which the land proprietor\nis not able any longer to consume, and which, nevertheless, industry is\ncompelled to sell, in order to be reimbursed the tax she has advanced,\nand be prepared to answer the fresh demand which next year government\nwill have occasion to make.\u2014But if it were to such means that _England_\nshould stand indebted for part of the increase in her exports, her\nindustry, methinks, would have derived less advantage therefrom, than a\nhome-sale might have procured, even supposing the inconvenience of which\nI shall speak presently: it appears to me also, that the land proprietors\nwould, in that case, have some reason to complain, and that the rest\nof the nation would have no cause to boast of the immensity of her\nexportation.\u2014The draw-backs granted on the very exportation of the taxed\ncommodities, prove that such an expedient never was adopted in _England_.\n\nWill the land proprietor come to a resolution to fly from his native\ncountry, in search of another, where good men content themselves with\ndeclaiming against luxury, without making any attempt to destroy it? No,\nhe never did, nor ever will take that resolution; he is fast bound to his\nland by the roots of every plant he has laid on it.\u2014What then is he to\ndo? It behoves the Minister of finance to give him some wholesome advice.\n\nIf the Minister be silent, or if he shuffle, because he is closely\nwatched by Opposition, he must equally lose his popularity; for the\nland proprietor, left to shift for himself, will raise the price of the\nproductions of his land, in proportion as the tax has increased that part\nof the products of industry that concerns him.\u2014\n\nBut his 20 millions revenue, have, as I have said, the same component\nparts as the 40 millions which he is obliged to give up for the expences\nof cultivation, and other incumbrances attending property:\u2014he cannot\ntherefore increase them to 25 millions, without raising by one twelfth\nthe total amount of the 60 millions of landed revenue; this will at\nonce carry up the quarter of wheat from 40_s._ to 43_s._ 4_d._: this is\ntherefore an advance of 8\u2153 _per cent._ on his commodities:\u2014upon which\nwe must observe, that no increase will take place in the wages of the\nmechanic, or of the husbandman; for the objects of luxury are the only\nones which we suppose to have been taxed: such is the _infernal_ side of\nthis _heavenly_ system.\u2014Yet this is not all.\n\nWhat is the money-proprietor to do, not having it in his power to\nraise the price of his money as the landed proprietor can do that of\nhis wheat, but who, on the contrary, is invariably limited to the same\nnominal revenue, whilst the tax of the other 5 millions, which the\n_humanity_ of the _taxator_ had levelled at him, has occasioned a rise\nof 25 _per cent._ in the nominal value of those articles of luxury in\nwhich he indulged himself?\u2014He will, he must leave them in the hands of\nindustry, and confine himself to such objects as are not taxed; it is a\nresource, as it is at the same time a compulsive measure.\u2014_The produce\nof the tax will then be inadequate to the want_: a second impost must\nthen be thought on, to supply the _deficit_ of the first.\u2014_Fall again\nupon luxury_, cry the enthusiasts; _this is more necessary than ever,\nfor bread is already 8\u2153 per cent. dearer than it was, and the land\nproprietors have abated nothing of their luxury; they ride still in their\nchariots, whilst the poor loaded porter constantly trudges on foot_.\nEnthusiasts will never see further, and those who are not enthusiasts\ndo not yet see far enough; for they only say _that it is expedient for\ngovernment, that the prices of commodities be kept up, in order to\nfacilitate the payment of the impost_.\u2014Yet, _if it is expedient_ for\ngovernment, that the prices be _kept up_ to _facilitate_ the payment of\nthe impost, I conclude that it is an _absolute necessity_ for government,\nthat the prices do increase, when there is no other visible means to\nestablish _the possibility_ of paying taxes. I therefore have to answer\nonly to the enthusiasts, and let it be as the enthusiasts will have it:\u2e3a\n\nBut the first 5 millions of the _charitable_ tax could not be paid,\nwithout an advanced price of 8\u2153 _per cent._ on all the productions of\nthe earth, without raising the wheat from 40_s._ to 43_s._ 4_d._\u2014it will\nthen be necessary to increase its price by as much again; it must advance\nfrom 43_s._ 4_d._ to 46_s._ 8_d._ in order that the tax be paid _without\nforeign assistance_. Then all will be settled, regulated, balanced, and\npaid between the _capitalists_ of land and those of industry; _but as no\nobjects will have been taxed but those of luxury_, how long will it be\nbefore the people, the labouring man can see justice done to him?\u2014Ten\npopular insurrections perhaps will be required to extort it. Yet let us\nsuppose that the very first proves sufficient to procure it complete,\nthat is, that their wages be raised 16\u2154 _per cent._ as the tax after\nall the necessary re-actions has increased the price of the produce of\ntheir labour:\u2014in this case, instead of the 20 millions allowed before to\neach of the two classes of working men, cultivators and mechanics, they\nwill then receive 23,333,333_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._\u2014But how will you wrest\nfrom the hands of the land proprietor 3,333,333_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ out\nof the portion which he was obliged to lay by, _that the tax might be\npaid by his consumption_, without his advancing again the price of his\ncommodities in such a proportion as will return him the new sum which\nhe is forced to pay?\u2014And were he not to augment again the price of his\ncommodities, would not then a new tax become necessary to supply the\n_deficit_ which the rise of wages of the labouring men must occasion in\nthe consumption of their employers?\u2014The land proprietor will then add\nstill to the price of his goods;\u2014but will not this addition, _equally\nnecessary as the two first_, be productive of a further necessity of\nraising in proportion the price of labour, the wages of the labouring\nman?\u2014No doubt; and another insurrection would procure justice, if the\nthought did not occur at last of observing, that _the class of labouring\nmen being, before the tax, in possession of one third of the general\nrevenue, forms, in this respect, a third interest equal to one half of\nthe two other_. Now, the tax having enforced an advance in prices of 16\u2154,\nto shelter the two former from its effect, there must also be, in favour\nof the third interest, a third increase of 8\u2153, which rising at last to\n25 _per cent._ more, the price of labour, as that of its produce, both\nin regard to land and industry, will exactly leave to each of the three\ninterests, under the denomination of _twenty-five_, the same comforts as\neach of them enjoyed under that of _twenty_ before the tax was laid.\n\nIn regard therefore to the effects of the tax on the prices of\nprovisions, there is not the least difference between the system of\ntaxing luxury, and that of a land-tax; 50_s._ in the supposition of an\nimpost of ten millions, would prove in either system the _necessary_\nprice of wheat; for if ever a price can be termed _necessary_, it is when\nit cannot be lower without effecting the ruin of the land proprietor, and\neven _without missing the sole and indispensable end of taxation_, unless\nrecourse be had to one of the following resources:\n\n_Either_\n\nTo export such commodities, which, as it might be absurdly supposed, the\nnation is no longer able to consume,\n\n_Or_,\n\nTo steal from the people the proportionable increase _due to them_ in the\nprice of their labour, if they should prove so complaisant as tamely to\nsubmit, out of gratitude, for _the tax being laid only upon luxury_.\n\nI shall conclude this article with a reflexion which may give birth to\nmany others.\n\nThe impost on _luxury_, which, after a very little time, as we have seen,\nproves no ways injurious to those who were able to pay for the objects\nupon which the tax was laid, is besides, under another point of view,\nreally advantageous to those very men who seem the only contributors to\nit; _because_ it sets entirely above the reach of the people, a number of\narticles in which they would indulge themselves, _to the great benefit of\nthe tax_, and which, though perhaps intended _by the general provider_,\nas well for the poor as for the rich, are nevertheless, by the _merciful_\nsystem of taxation, exclusively reserved to the rich.\u2014Is this the\nintention of the _merciful taxator_?\u2014in my opinion it ought not to be\nthat of an _intelligent one_.\n\n\n\n\n_Effects of a merciless Tax upon all the Articles of the most general\nConsumption._\n\n\nInstead of laying a tax _on men_, from whom, without rushing with open\neyes into the perpetration of a thousand injuries, it is impossible to\nrequire any thing more than a _personal service_, when it is necessary\nand _possible_ withal; instead of taxing _the land_, from which nothing\ncan be expected but food, and the rough materials to which industry\ncan give from one to many hundred degrees of value; instead of taxing\nthat imaginary monster called _luxury_, which procures so substantial\na support to some, and such pleasing comforts to others, lay your tax\nsolely, and without predilection, on _all those products of national and\nforeign industry which are more generally consumed_; then, in my opinion,\nyou will have reason to flatter yourself that riches are taxed to their\nvery source, and without inconvenience to any one, since you tax it in\nthe hands of those who are, _by the strictest justice_, authorised to a\nbenefit for all the advances made by them to the consumer.\n\nSo then, though the tax of 10 millions be fixed on certain parts of\nindustry, nothing will prevent the whole from rising proportionably; and\nfor this, _God alone be thanked_. The whole will be then 70 millions\ninstead of 60;\u2014upon which the least reflexion is sufficient to make us\nfeel the necessity of the re-actions mentioned in the foregoing system,\n_but with this difference_, that the general consumption having been\ntaxed, the two _capitalists_ cannot, even on the very day when the impost\ntakes place, shut their eyes against the justice of increasing the\nsalary of the labouring man in a due proportion.\u2014Now, _the interest_ of\nthe two capitalists could not, as in the preceding system, be preserved\nundiminished, but by an increase from 60 to 70 millions, that is to\nsay, 16\u2154 _per cent._\u2014Now, _the interest_ of the labouring man is, as\nhas been observed before, equal to one half of the other two classes\nin the general revenue, or, in other words, equal to either;\u2014it will\ntherefore become necessary, in order to restore the former equilibrium,\nto introduce a fresh increase of 8\u2153 _per cent._ upon every thing;\u2014in\nconsequence of which the price of labour, being raised 25 _per cent._\njust as its products, both in cultivation and industry, will leave also\nthe two classes of labourers in the same situation they were in previous\nto the tax; each of them was then in possession of 20 millions out of\n60, each will now get 25 out of 75.\n\nI think also that _then_, a Minister of finance, ever so anxious about\nhis operations, ever so zealous for the establishment of none but\n_productive_ taxes, could not conceive a single article of consumption\nthat might suffer by this arrangement; it would appear too evidently\nthat every one would _then_ have the very same faculty of consuming,\nmanufacturing, or saving, under the denomination of 25, all that he had\nbefore consumed, manufactured, or saved under the denomination of 20.\n\nIt would also be seen _then_, that the success of those taxes termed\n_productive_, is not to be ascribed to the abilities of the _taxator_,\nbut to the abilities of the persons _taxed_, who have taken care to right\nthemselves by so much as the _taxator_ ought to have been afraid of being\nunjust.\n\n_Then_ also would every one be sensible, that the advance in all the\nprices could not be only of a 12th part, or 8\u2153 _per cent._ as in the\n_glorious_ system of a poll-tax _established by Divine Justice_, but\nof 25 _per cent._ neither _more nor less_ than in the system of the\n_land-tax_, neither _more nor less_ than in the system of an exclusive\ntax _upon luxury_; that consequently _wheat_, as well as produce of\nany other sort, as well as _labour_ which gives the whole, _would be\nindebted to the tax for a fifth part of its new nominal value_, and that\n50_s._ would be the _medium_ price of wheat;\u2014its _necessary_ price,\nbut not more _necessary_ in that _merciless_ taxation, than in the\n_merciful_ one laid on the exclusive consumption of the rich:\u2014and this\ncalls for the attention of every individual; nor can it be too often\nrepeated, because _then_ neither hypocrites, nor enthusiasts, nor good\nmen, nor manufacturers, nor farmers, nor proprietors, could any longer\ndeceive themselves or others, on the price of labour; it would be too\nself-evident that the said price ought to increase with the taxes, and\nthat no one would be injured by that increase.\n\nThen it would also appear, that some people had very good reason to say,\nthat the burden of all taxes, falls one time or another, on the landed\nproperty; but who could refuse to admit besides, that I am tolerably\nfounded in insisting, that when taxes have in fine reached every part of\nthe whole, no one part can feel the weight?\n\n_The money proprietor_, it will be said, the _lender alone_ will be\naggrieved; he must lose the fifth part of his usual comforts, he must pay\n15 for those articles which he could procure formerly for 12.\n\nI shall confine myself to three answers:\n\nFirst, _Is it not self-evident, that any financiering operation, which\nreduces from 5 to 4, the interest of a national debt, deprives as well\nthe lender of the fifth part of his comforts, AS IF THE NATION HAD LOADED\nHERSELF WITH TEN MILLIONS MORE, TO BE PAID ANNUALLY? (such is the present\nhypothesis.)_ There stands, therefore, between the two cases no other\ndifference, but the _palpable_ justice and necessity of the one, and I\nbelieve we may say, the _unsuspected_ inutility and injustice of the\nother.\n\nSecondly, We have already seen that the loss of the lender, in all cases,\nflows essentially from the nature of his capital; that it is inseparable\nfrom the advance of prices, whether _that advance_ originates from an\naccession of wealth, or is produced by taxes, or brought on by monopoly;\nand that besides, by lending to the State, with the certainty that the\nState could not pay the interest of the loan without the assistance\nof an import, he has beforehand submitted to the effects of an impost\n_indispensable_ to his main object.\n\nThirdly, If we except a poll-tax, which we should suppose _laid by Divine\nJustice_, and which, in the present hypothesis, should wrest from the\nlender only a twelfth part of his enjoyments, where is the system, which,\n_in the supposition of a tax of ten millions, being now necessary in\nEngland_, would not deprive him of a fifth part of those enjoyments?\u2014We\nshall see presently that a _compound-tax_ would perhaps prove still less\nfavourable; but how much has he to dread, in all cases, from the indirect\ntaxation of the _monopoly_, which it is impossible duly to estimate!\n\n\n\n\n_Effects of Compound Taxation._\n\n\nThe system of taxation, which may be called general, is composed of\nthe four different kinds of taxes which I have just mentioned:\u2014First,\nsome kind of _poll-tax_, under that or any other name;\u2014secondly, a\n_land-tax_;\u2014thirdly, an impost on the consumption of the rich, or\n_luxury_;\u2014and fourthly, in fine, the freedom taken with _the consumption\nof the poor_, or general consumption; for the sun of reason forces its\nway through the darkness of prejudices; these only serve to retard the\nprogress of nature wherever light first began to shine. It would be\neasier to stifle truth at first, than entirely to escape its effects.\n\nNo country in the world can be guarded against the injustice inseparable\nfrom the _two first parts_ of the system of a compound-taxation, whatever\nmay be in that respect the wisdom of the legislature, and its tenderness\nin the manner of collecting the impost; no country can be free from that\nother kind of injustice which results from the general prejudice in\nfavour of the tax on luxury, which constitutes the _third part_ of the\nsystem under examination; but the _ensemble_\u2014the whole together, does not\nproduce every where the same effects on the prices.\n\nIn _France_, from the beginning of the present century down to the time\nwhen Mons. _Turgot_ was intrusted with the department of the finances,\nthe sum of what I can collect from the _French_ mode of taxation, is,\nthat without any determined system, without any other rule than the\nimmediate want of money, and the facility of procuring that money by\nmeans of a loan, at any interest whatever, they had successively taxed\nwhatever came first to hand, or occurred to the imagination of the\ncomptroller general for the time being; nothing was spared, in order that\nno one should complain; landed estates, employments, money, individuals,\nthe one because he was industrious, the other because he had no industry\nand _that he might acquire some_; this man, because he had a _title_;\nthat other, because he had none; a third, on account of what he consumed;\na fourth, for that consumption to which he was doomed,\u2014(_an expedient\nwhich, together with the galleys, was devised by the farmers general,\nas an admirable stroke upon smuggling_). No sin more venial, than to\ntake some liberties with a compound of such motley pieces; nothing more\nsevere than the reflexions thrown out against it on the other side of the\nchannel; and nothing can more forcibly prove that _France_ was planning\nsome reform on the subject, than the orders given most minutely to\nenquire into the principles and effects of the various modes of taxation\nadopted in other parts of _Europe_. I think, in regard to all those parts\nof _French_ taxation, which I have alluded to, as every intelligent man\ndoes in _France_ and _England_: nevertheless, if one cannot positively\naffirm, that the result of such a chaos of strange regulations, has\nbeen, that every one perceiving the burden to be general, nobody ever\nthought of easing himself at the expence of others who appeared to have\nbeen loaded in the same manner, yet it cannot be contradicted, that,\nnotwithstanding the want of true principles on the part of the _taxator_\nin _France_, the price of every thing might have continued to this day,\nwithout material alteration, had it not been for an event, of which\nI shall speak in the sequel; and if it were true, as some very deep\npoliticians will have it, that _the more depreciated commodities are in\na country, the quicker that nation advances towards opulence, because,\nin such a case, the national manufacturer has it in his power to favour\nthe foreigner by underselling all other countries in the world_; if this\nprinciple were not at least questionable, as I hope to prove it by and\nby, every one would admit that the _compound-taxation_, EVEN COMPOUNDED,\nas I have just described it, does not appear totally destitute of some\nadvantages.\n\nBefore I venture to express my thoughts on the subject, I wish the reader\nwould form to himself an idea of what might be the effect of such a\nsystem in _England_;\u2014in _England_, where every man is a calculator, and\nadds without ceremony, on the creditor side of his books, the number\nof figures necessary to balance those which he thinks too many in the\ncalculation of others. They say in _England_, and there they are more\nbitterly persuaded than any where else, that taxes take annually out of\nthe pockets of those who pay them, the whole amount of the impost; but\n_there_ as every where, and _there_ much sooner than in any other part\nof the world, justice and reason never fail to put into the head of each\nindividual, what he is to do, that the tax be not paid for a long while\nout of his own pocket. I may therefore boldly say, that nothing more is\nwanted on the part of _England_, to join perfectly in opinion with me,\nconcerning the most important point (that which concerns the national\ndebt), than to observe, that every one has always done as secretly and as\nexpeditiously as he could, for himself alone, what I insist it would be\nadvantageous to do openly, with equal celerity, for the general good[8].\nI now resume my subject.\n\nIt would be, methinks, a difficult matter not to conclude, from such\nvery reasonable conflict of private calculations, that, were the\n_French_ system to be adopted in _England_, it would not, in that\n_land of benediction_, experience the fate of exotic plants; far from\ndegenerating, far from keeping the price of all things at the lowest ebb,\nit would acquire from the influence of general maxims, and from universal\ncustom, the weight necessary to balance that multitude of private\ninjuries, from which it is impossible to keep it free. Now, this cannot\nbe effected without forcing the price of every thing up to a pitch so\nmuch more extravagant, as each man, in such a case, is the natural judge\nof the indemnity he should allow himself for the tax imposed, and for the\nadvantage that others derive from it; if any one should shrink on the\noccasion, he finds in his _corporation_ a degree of vigour, of which he\nshares the benefit. The word of the law is the only bridle in _England_;\na tax of 4_s._ on a particular article, increases its known price only\nby something more; but if government gets 50,000_l._ from a tax, under\nthe appellation of _licence_, or any other name, which leaves the man\nthus taxed, supreme judge of the rate, and at liberty to choose the means\nof indemnifying himself, one may rest assured that such a tax costs\nthe people six times as much as it brings in to government. Let every\nman candidly weigh this (I don\u2019t say undenied, but I say) undeniable\nassertion, from the circumstances of the moment; let him examine what\nremains to be done by the land proprietor, that he may not be most\nshamefully ransomed; let him judge in what predicament that man must\nstand, whose fixed revenue in money, affords him no resource against the\neffects produced by such an emulation; let him observe, above all, that\nthe daily labourer will not, _before the matter is brought to the last\nextremity_, be paid one penny more, _because care has been charitably\ntaken to tax almost none of the articles of his consumption; and let him\nthen_, if he dares to do it, _let him bless the tax on luxury_, and any\nother kind of impost, _but such as is laid on the objects of most general\nconsumption_.\n\nThe _real_ necessity of providing for the interest due on the debt\ncontracted during the last war, and the _imaginary_ advantage of the\nintended reimbursement, have compelled the present Ministry (and\naccording to the maxims and ideas that predominate at this time, would\nhave compelled all possible administrations) to impose many taxes of the\nvery exceptionable kind; to their effects add those of the indirect tax\nof corporations, premiums, prohibitions, and new obstacles thrown in the\nsmuggler\u2019s way, it will not be wonderful that the million sterling for\nthe _imaginary_ want of a reimbursement, together with the three millions\nsome hundred thousands, for the _real_ want, (the interest of the debt)\nand which, at the word, ought not to increase the total mass of prices\nmuch above 8 _per cent._ actually advance them to 12, whilst in _France_\nthe expences of the late war will not perhaps occasion, _at first_, a\nrise of more than 6 _per cent._ It will be seen in the sequel why I say,\n_at first_.\n\nBut, they say in _France_\u2014but, they say in _England_, all the articles\nof consumption are already so loaded, that it is impossible to think of\nincreasing the weight. The _French_ Farmers General themselves tremble\nwhen they propose to increase the duties on any article; _will not\nconsumption suffer by it_?\u2014Such is every where the terrible argument\nthat prevents the establishment of the only unexceptionable system,\nthe only equitable, and the only advantageous one to the people\u2014to the\npeople, on whose account they pretend to be so anxious.\u2014That system,\nit is true, would lessen by one half, _the nominal value_ of those\noperations that are held in so important a light, of all those tricks of\nwhich the contrivers themselves entertain so high an opinion; but what\nease, what leisure would not this very system procure to the Minister!\nLet us then see whether the formidable argument, on which is grounded\nthe impossibility of doing _the best_, will bear the analysis, so\n_formidable_ also in so many cases.\n\n\n\n\n_Some Doubts on the supposed Impossibility of laying all Taxes on\nConsumption._\n\n\nThe universal voice in _England_ is, that so many taxes should be laid,\nas are necessary to answer the exigences. Ministry, Opposition, Subjects,\nall agree in this essential point; but if we except some taxes which\nbear principally on the land proprietor, who never says any thing, and\nwhose silence commands that of every one who shares in his burden, the\nablest man in the three kingdoms is not capable of proposing one, on any\narticle, which would not be followed by a petition from those very men\nwho do not even wait till it has received the royal sanction, in order to\nderive from it an extravagant advantage, if it be within the meaning of\n_licences_, and perhaps only a profit _rather above_ a reasonable one,\nif it bears on an object properly specified.\n\nI have perused several of these petitions; and the substance of what has\nappeared to me most striking in every one of them is nearly this: \u201cLet\nevery thing be taxed in _England_, nothing more equitable; let every\nthing be taxed, _every thing_, except all the things that concern your\nhumble petitioners: you cannot tax them, without ruining their trade; and\nnot only their trade, but also the whole trade of the nation at large;\nand not only without ruining the whole trade of the nation at large, but\nwithout stifling that principle of liberty, that noble spirit of life,\nwhich has so highly distinguished her above all the nations in the world.\u201d\n\nWere any one to infer, from the foregoing extract, that my intention is\nto stigmatize the use of _petitions_,\u2014notwithstanding the most invincible\nantipathy I bear to exclamations, which, for the most part, betray either\nweakness or hypocrisy, I should exclaim, O Divine Liberty, of _humbly\nshewing_, to the most respectable parts of a nation, all kinds of ideas,\nwhether absurd or reasonable! Divine Liberty, never treated in _England_\nbut with that regard which is due from one man to whatever comes from\nanother man! Divine Liberty, who givest to the Legislator, the time,\nknowledge, and often the means, necessary to prevent him from falling\ninto such errors as it is not beyond the power of human nature to avoid,\n... be thou ever blessed, and mayest thou be worshipped wherever men are\nnot infallible, and wherever millions of men may suffer from a single\nmistake!\n\nIn _England_, the produce of taxes on the various articles of\nconsumption, amounts, I suppose, to 8,000,000_l._: in order to procure\nthe 5 or 6 other millions required, a part of which is necessary, a part\nof which is supposed to be so on account of the plan of a reimbursement,\nthe land continues to be taxed for 2 millions, and the other 3 or 4 are\ntaken from perhaps 30 different articles, one of which will bring in\n150, another 100, a third 60, a fourth 30 thousand pounds, &c. with a\nsalvo for Government to tax half a score more articles, if it should be\nrobbed rather too unconscionably on the produce of the former; for, in\nall countries throughout the world, this is all the conjuration in that\npart of the administration of finances which relates to the collecting\nof taxes; if you rob Government in one point, be sure Government will\nransom you, if required, on ten others; nothing more just, but nothing\nmore easy.\n\nNow, if we lay it down for an indubitable maxim, that the most able\nAdministrator of finances, cannot take from an individual, more than\nwhat he possesses, it seems to me then that it remains only to examine,\nwhether that very individual from whom, one way or another, out of the 20\nhe is possessed of, 5 may be wrested,\u2014will be less aggrieved if the 5 be\ntaken out of his pocket, and he be sent to market with the remaining 15,\nthan he would be, were he permitted to go with the whole 20 to market,\nwhere he would find those 15 which he used to purchase for 15, charged\nwith the 5 which might have been taken from him at home?\n\nThe question more to the point is yet more singular; for it goes to this\nenquiry:\n\nFirst, Whether the land proprietor, who is obliged to give at a fixed\nperiod three millions in taxes for his land, windows, domestics, and\nother objects more recently taxed, would think himself more injured if\nthose three millions were divided and laid upon some objects of his\nconsumption, while he should observe that by this new order of things he\nwould gain the convenience, not only of paying these three millions by\ndifferent and remote installments, but also of making use of the money\nprevious to such payment,\u2014without injury to the trader, to whom the\ninterest would be one way or other repaid,\u2014while on the other hand, a\npart of the money, laid out upon his land, would furnish new resources\nfor augmenting the produce of the taxes, by increasing his faculties of\nconsumption:\n\nSecondly, Whether those unfortunate licensed persons, and others (who so\nbitterly complain of all the various taxes that produce to them three\nor four times the sum which they advance to Government) would not be\n_justly_, as they ought to be, relieved from the _oppression_ (that is\nthe word) if such taxes were taken off, and laid on articles of which\nthey would themselves be the consumers:\n\nThirdly, Whether all those extraordinary, usurious, and unjust benefits,\narising from those _oppressive_ taxes which I have been mentioning,\nreduced to their proper point, by taxes that would not increase the\nprice of any article beyond a known degree, would not naturally reduce\nthe _value_ of every thing to that _necessary_ price I have spoken\nof,\u2014to that price which every thing ought to maintain, that the imaginary\n_oppressed_ might not actually _oppress_ the imaginary _oppressors_,\u2014that\nall things may be preserved in a just balance, without any person\nexperiencing a change in his condition;\u2014and consequently, without the\nconsumption of any article being diminished, unless fancy or fashion\nshould transfer it to another article that will indemnify for the\ndeficiency.[9]\n\nFrom _England_ let us pass over to _France_, and always taking for\ngranted that a Minister of finance is not a conjurer, and that he can\ntake from the pockets of the people no more money than they possess; I\nwish it could be examined:\n\nWhether the 41 millions of _livres Tournois_, produced by the poll-tax,\nand which should be paid no longer, when that tax should be transferred\nto, and divided between all the articles _of the most general\nconsumption, and of course the most productive_, would diminish the\ngeneral faculties, by increasing the value of those objects, to the whole\nof that sum which the contributors would gain by paying no longer the\npoll-tax.\n\nI would have it also enquired into, whether the clergy, finding the\nobjects of that general consumption loaded with 11 millions more,\ncould be aggrieved by the sole disappointment of giving no longer\n_gratuitously_ to his Majesty, those 11 millions which they are now\n_compelled_ to pay; and whether they would not be left in possession of\nall the faculties necessary to satisfy the first article, as soon as they\nshould be freed from the other.\n\nI should also wish the _French_ to examine whether the 76 millions\n_Tournois_, paid in that country for the _three twentieths_, instead of\nbeing very often called for, _at a time when the Subject has them not_,\ntransferred to those objects which cannot be consumed but by means of\nthe money remaining after those 76 millions are discharged, would impair\nthe means of the contributors, although after having eased them of that\ntruly terrible tax, the Minister should, in a manner, juggle them out of\nthe whole amount of it, by another impost on consumption. Supposing even\nthey had some suspicion of the trick, I wish it were examined whether\nthey would think themselves injured by paying in the new way that amount,\nby installments at their own time, and till then laying out a part of\nit upon their lands, the revenues of which would of course increase in\nproportion.\n\nBut above all, I wish it should be examined, whether 91 millions of\nanother kind of subsidy, called _la taille_, added to 7 millions and a\nhalf more, laid out in expences for warrants and distresses, necessary\nto enforce the law of the subsidy, transferred upon the consumption of\nthose from whose hands the _subsidy_ is directly wrested, against whom\nthe _warrants_ are issued, upon whose goods or body the distresses are\nexecuted, would diminish the faculty of that poor people\u2019s consumption,\nif, by means of that consumption, by the suppression of the old\n_subsidy_, of _warrants_, and _distresses_ attending the same, they\nshould acquire the faculty of consuming cheerfully, what they often\nconsume in bitterness and sorrow; and whether the department of the\nfinances could lose by it any thing more than the pleasure or trouble,\nor rather the necessity of assessing a dreadful subsidy, issuing out\nwarrants, and distressing the body\u2014when there are no goods to be\ndistrained.\n\n_But in this scheme the expence is more considerable._\n\nThis is the grand objection: _The expence is more considerable!_ Reduce\nthe unfortunate to a bed of straw, or cast him into prison, to spare the\npurse ... of whom?\u2014For after all, supposing even that a few additional\ncharges ought to be compared with millions of inconveniences, injuries,\nand acts of barbarity, which are inseparable from the other methods, let\nit be examined whether the extra charges can produce any other effect,\nthan that of advancing by a few _deniers pour livr\u00e8_ the general price\nof merchandise; let it be examined whether that advance is not a matter\nof perfect indifference, provided that the price of the provisions sold\nby the land proprietor, _who is stiled rich_, and that of the wages of\nthe labouring man, who _is called poor_, rise in the same proportion as\nthe goods of the _capitalist_ of industry, who stands equally and as\nessentially in need of the ease of the _poor_, as of the opulence of the\n_rich_.\n\nIn fine, Let it be examined whether there is any thing great, courageous,\njust, and fair, that may not be expected from the _French_ nation, when\nshe shall be admitted to the honour of being heard,\u2014or when they will be\nkind enough to convince her.\u2014A King of _France_, with the trifling help\nof his provincial administrations, may do, and play with every thing: a\nKing of _France_ is truly a despot; not from that absurd right of giving\nhis _will_ for _reason_, but from that principle which is congenial to\nthe _French_, that the People and the King are but one, have but one\ninterest, and have nothing to fear but the ignorance of a Minister,\nconscious of his inability, without the least thought of the resources\nhe has at hand in such a case, without principles to guard him against\ncommitting those injuries which seem to him unavoidable, in order to\nconceal the errors which he has been, or fears to be, guilty of; a\nMinister, in fine, whose insignificant little self, wrests from the King\nand People, the fruit of that _identity_ which forms the acknowledged\nessence of the _French_ constitution.\n\nWhat seems to be in _France_ no more than a fortunate prejudice, is\nevery where an irrefragable truth: in every country the strength,\npower, and riches of the Prince, are but the sum of the force, power,\nriches, energy, honour and _susceptibility_, which actually exist in\nthe mass of his subjects.\u2014But if the Sovereign be the most powerful man\nin his kingdom, only because all its strength centers in him; if in\nthis age, the most complaisant, the meanest Minister should not dare\neven to insinuate a contrary idea before the Prince the most jealous\nof his authority; how can he presume to think, or to hope, that it\nwill be in his power to persuade the Prince, that he, the Minister, is\nthe best informed man in the Empire, before he has collected all the\ninformation that can be got on every object that does not call for an\nimmediate execution?\u2014And how can he pretend to have collected every such\ninformation, when in addition to his own ideas, he goes only by those of\nthe few dependents who surround him, dependents as much on their guard\nbefore him, as he himself is circumspect before the Sovereign, when the\nSovereign, before he asks his advice, has the misfortune to let a single\nword escape that betrays even the appearance of an opinion on the object\nunder deliberation?\n\n\n\n\n_Recapitulation of the foregoing Thoughts on Taxes and their Effects._\n\n\nThe fate of the various kinds of taxes, is similar to that of political\noperations, which pretty regularly bring about the very contrary of what\nhad been expected from them: thus if you tax the consumption of the rich,\npresently the poor alone will pay the impost, and will continue to pay\nit till an insurrection will make you sensible that he is brought too\nlow; now this insurrection is commonly the consequence of a trifling\nscarcity, which, it seems, Providence sends to the unfortunate in order\nto encourage his asking for justice, in the only manner that is likely\nto prove successful: on the contrary, let the tax be laid on the general\nconsumption, without sparing that of the poor, the man who possesses,\nshall be, no doubt, necessitated to pay for the man who has nothing, if\nthe former wishes to enjoy the labour of the latter; and on the very same\nday, when the tax is laid on the consumption of the labouring man, he\nwill not hesitate to demand an increase of wages to the full amount....\nHow is he to be deceived?\u2014If it be well to deceive the poor as long as\npossible, then tax nothing but the consumption of the rich. But whatever\nbe the manner in which the impost is laid, as soon as its effect shall be\ngeneral, the burden will prove _null_ (SAVE THE INJURIES INSEPARABLE FROM\nALL OTHER TAXES, BUT THOSE THAT BEAR UPON CONSUMPTION): this effect is no\nmore than a general advance in all the prices: an advance, it is true,\nalready acknowledged necessary with regard to the taxed articles, but\ndreaded hitherto in regard to all the rest, _where it ought to have been\nwished for_; universally felt, but never justly estimated; the _nullity_\nof the burden of the debt would have been determined by the estimation.\n\nThe poll-tax, _supposed to be established by Divine Justice_, would\nenhance the price of labour, and of its products, but by a fraction\nequal to that which the amount of the tax should be, in the mass of both\nrevenues, land and industry. Ten millions of a poll-tax on a revenue\nof 120, would increase the prices of every thing by one twelfth; and\nevery man thus taxed, would evidently after the advance of prices, in\nconsequence of such a poll-tax, find himself in the very same state he\nstood in before the tax; yet one twelfth more must be given for every\nthing, but then one twelfth more would be received for every thing.\n\nAll other kinds of taxes, as well as the poll-tax, seem to affect only\nthe article on which they are laid; but this article comprehends the\nthree interests, and trebles the action of the tax when the interest of\nthe labouring man, that is, the price of his day\u2019s work, constitutes,\nas it does in _England_, nearly one third of the revenue.\u2e3aHow could it\nbe supposed that the taxing of industry in its products, was granting\nto its _capitalist_ the _right_ of increasing his price by the whole\namount of the tax, without making it _necessary_ for the land proprietor\nto enhance the price of his commodities at the same rate? And how could\nit be supposed that the products of agriculture and industry, happening\nto be, by a very just re-action, (whether it originates with the one\nor the other), increased in price in the same proportion, agriculture\nand industry should not be compelled to increase of course the price\nof labour which procured those products? If therefore you advance by\n10 millions, the prices either of all the productions of the earth, by\ntaxing agriculture, or of all the productions of the arts, by taxing\nindustry, you equally compel the untaxed part to advance its prices to\nthe whole amount of the 10 millions laid on the corresponding part,\n_otherwise goods to the amount of 10 millions would evidently remain\nunsold_. Now the influence of those new prices will enforce by degrees an\nincrease on the price of labour, and this increase will soon be followed\nby a fresh one on the value of its products; whence it appears at last,\nthat after all the necessary re-actions, the same tax of 10 millions,\nwhich by a general _equitable_ poll-tax, supposed _as equitable as it is\nIMPOSSIBLE to make it so_, would only raise the prices by one twelfth,\nor 8\u2153 _per cent._; if laid, either on the land, or luxury, or general\nconsumption, would necessarily advance the prices, sooner or later, to 25\n_per cent._; the very precise period whereat every one would find himself\nin the exact state in which he was previous to the tax, paying, it is\ntrue, every thing 25 _per cent._ dearer, but being himself paid 25 _per\ncent._ dearer too.\n\nAlter the proportion of the usual price of labour, by supposing a country\nso far barren as to make it necessary to appropriate one half of the\nrevenue to the labouring people; in such case a tax of 10 millions laid\non a revenue of 60 would increase by 30 _per cent._ the price of labour,\nand of its products; 30 _per cent._ would raise the revenue from 60 to 78\nmillions: now 39 being the half of 78, as 30 is that of 60, the burden of\nthe tax would then prove equally _null_, after every article should have\nbeen raised 30 _per cent._\n\nAlter again the proportion of the common price of labour, by supposing\nthat the cultivator is allowed only one fourth of the revenue; this\ndivision may take place in a country extremely fertile; in this case, a\ntax of 10 millions on a revenue of 60, would only add 20 _per cent._ to\nthe former prices; instead of raising the revenue of 60 millions to 75,\nas in the case of three equal shares, or to 78, as in the supposition of\nthe revenue being divided in halves, the tax would then carry it only to\n72. Now the 4th part of 72 is 18, as 15 is the 4th of 60; therefore if,\nafter the tax is imposed, you give 18 wherever you paid only 15 before\nthat period, the burden will clearly be _null_ again, since the increase\nin the price of labour, must have followed the advanced price of its\nproducts, an advance necessitated by the impost.\n\nHere, methinks, I hear the enthusiasts exclaim, _How! the fertility of\nthe land is then of no advantage, but to its greedy owners!_\u2014I am in\nhopes that before I conclude this Pamphlet, I shall be able to find,\nto the great satisfaction of all good men, how many advantages remain\nin the hands of the most opulent land proprietor; nay I hope to prove\nthat in a fertile land there is nothing lost to any of its inhabitants,\nunless _extraordinary efforts be used to concenter within that spot the\ngeneral benefit which must result from it_. I shall content myself at\npresent with requesting the reader to compare my thoughts on the taxes,\nwith the two following problems, so often debated both in _England_ and\nin _France_. How is it that _France_ has constantly retrieved her errors\nand her misfortunes? How comes it that _England_ has not yet sunk under\nthe burden of her taxes? The _French_ exciseman says: _It is because the\nmore the people are loaded, the better they walk_; and very sensible\nmen in _England_ used to say, \u201c_Reason and experience_ seem to prove\nthat taxes stimulate industry, and that the poor, _to live as well as\nbefore, perform more work without demanding more for their labour_.\u201d (_D.\nHume_\u2019s Essay VIII. on Taxes). It seems to me that the above two problems\nare more humanely solved by the reasons I have produced, and that those\nreasons destroy all idea of a miracle, or of the necessity of loading\nthe people in order to spur their industry, and encourage them to work:\non the contrary, to forward those two great points, it is necessary to\nincrease the price of their labour in the same proportion as that of\nits products is raised by the taxes; and this will suffice to render\nevidently _null_ the burden of all taxes whatever.\n\n\n\n\n_Further Considerations on the Necessity of a Correspondence between the\nPrices of Agriculture and those of Industry._\n\n\nI have said it more than once, and beg leave to repeat it here: Let any\nessential object be denoted by one number or another; it is a matter of\nperfect indifference, provided the numbers intended to denote the _mass_\nof objects corresponding thereto, do not present any ideas contrary to\nthe proportion of labour which exists between the _essential object_,\nand the mass which is to form its balance. Thus then, be the value of\nwheat, which serves as the general standard, because it is useful to\nall, at all times, and which ought to be so, from another consideration\nalmost equally powerful, namely, that it constitutes about one third\nof the landed revenue in _Europe_\u2014be its value, I say, denominated 30,\n50, or 25, nothing more indifferent, provided the numbers denoting the\nvalue of the other products of land and industry, keep exactly, either by\nmore or by less, within the same proportion; it is clear that, in such\na case, neither the land proprietor nor the _capitalist_ of industry,\ncan undergo from the alteration in the numbers, any real alteration in\ntheir circumstances. But to think of nothing but the manufactures, and\nimagine it possible to maintain, and endeavour seriously to maintain,\nwheat at the same price, whilst the taxes advance by 10 _per cent._ that\nof the products of industry,\u2014is to aim at the ruin of agriculture, and to\noblige all the proprietors of land and money, whose employments in the\nState would not indemnify them for such an injustice, to go in search of\nanother country, where the manufacturer, better acquainted with his real\ninterest, would know, or act as if he knew, that the solidity of his\nwealth is inseparable from that of the land proprietor, and from the ease\nof the proprietor of money, and of the labouring man.\n\n_Then_ perhaps those national manufacturers, so proud and so jealous of\ntheir exportations, so greedy of premiums, prohibitions, restrictions,\nencouragements of all kinds, would sue more ardently to have those\nnuisances suppressed, than they ever did for their establishment.\n\nNothing more admirable than those regulations to which _England_\nacknowledges to be indebted for the best part of her wealth and power;\nbut they crept in at a time when ignorance generally prevailed, when all\nthe other parts of _Europe_ had almost no idea either of the principle of\ncommerce, or of its influence over all the other resources of society.\nIn effect, from what known point could one then start, to imagine that a\nnation, who openly countenances monopoly at home, in order to encourage\nher foreign trade, lays the most solid basis for the monopoly she wishes\nto secure to herself every where? How was it possible to conceive that\nthe _Dutch_, a nation so necessary to those that are deficient in means,\nand so forcibly compelled by the superabundance of their own, to make\nthem serviceable to those who stand in need of them, could not be shut\nout from the _English_ ports, without depriving the rest of _Europe_\nof the advantage, which their admittance every where was necessarily\ncalculated to procure to their correspondents, by securing to them, _as\nwell as to England_, a competition so essential to all, and fatal to\nmonopoly alone? _Europe_, busy at that time in search of another sort\nof equilibrium, did not consider what weight commerce, carried on upon\nsuch principles, would throw into one of the scales; how could _Europe_\nthen suspect that it would overthrow the balance entirely? But what is\nthe final result of all these projects against Nature?\u2014The pretensions\nof the Ecclesiastical State stirred up all _Europe_; _and the Pontifical\nSee was fixed in its proper place_. _France_ roused all _Europe_ against\nthe ambition of the House of _Austria_, much more formidable by its real\npower; _the Imperial Throne was fixed in its proper place_, and _France_\nwas hailed as the founder and assertor of _European_ liberties. Soon\nafter the Protectress became a despot; _England_ stirred up all _Europe_\nagainst her, and _France was, aukwardly, thrown out of her proper\nplace_; _England_, the principal instrument of the revolution, made an\nimproper use of her importance, as had been successively done by the\nEcclesiastical Power, the House of _Austria_, and by _France_;\u2014the Armed\nNeutrality appeared, and presented a code of laws unheard of before; it\nwas just; every nation, that had not bowed beneath the _English_ yoke,\nadopted it:\u2014there was an instant, when this armed neutrality might have\ndictated both to _England_ and _France_, laws as equitable as the code\nitself; and all _Europe_ would have applauded, had even _England_ and\n_France_ united, at that very instant, to exterminate in concert the\nwhole naval force of _Europe_, then burnt the exterminating fleets, and\nthemselves given to all the world those very laws of equity which were\nintended to be imposed upon them.\n\nEvery thing, at this moment, is in that happy state, which gives time to\nreflect upon what is past, to see what is present, to look forwards to\nwhat is to come, and to consider an _ensemble_, the very idea of which\ncould not be admitted during former periods. A few clouds, dispersed here\nand there, do not spoil the beauty of the horizon; no body can now, for\nany length of time, think it his interest to ruin and destroy; and every\nbody is concerned not to suffer any thing to be destroyed. I return to my\nsubject, if I may be said to have deviated from it.\n\nIf a diminution in the price of the necessaries of life be looked upon\nas so very important, there exists a sure method of effecting it, even\nin _England_, without any detriment to the land proprietor. Let us see\nwhether this very method would prove injurious to the true interest of\nthe manufacturer, who must be patronised, cherished as the fountain head\nof riches; I mean that kind of riches called _money_, which could not\nlong subsist without the riches called _wheat_.\n\n\n_Fourteenth Hypothesis._\n\nLet us suppose, that, by the suppression of the monopoly enjoyed by the\nmanufacturers, and of which they are so jealous, the price of the whole\nof their goods should fall one tenth; in such a case, the wheat which\nthe new taxes will enhance in price, I suppose, in the proportion of 40\nto 44, would, upon a medium, fall back to 40; and in this case again the\nproduce of the manufactories would only cost industry 20 instead of 22,\nat which they will be rated when wheat shall have risen from 40 to 44;\nfor, in the latter supposition, it will be necessary for industry to\npay finally this increase of expence, in favour of the artificers, who\nwould not long submit to an injustice, without presenting _petitions_ in\ntheir own way: just as wheat must indispensably rise from 40 to 44, in\norder that the land and money-proprietors be not compelled to leave their\ncountry, to the great prejudice of the internal consumption, so essential\nto the truest interest of the manufacturer.\n\nLet it then be supposed, that wheat should fall from 44 to 40, and so\nof all the rest;\u2014I confess that the proprietor of money would thereby\nbecome a gainer, and that the general persuasion is, that it is salutary\nhe should lose: but would he long support his gain? Would not the\nencouragement which every thing must derive from this new order of\nthings, from that activity which trade would find in the new channels\nthat would open every day, when commerce should build on that true\nprinciple, acknowledged to be the only unerring one, _the exchange of\ncommodities_, (excepting the bullion required for the five articles\nbefore mentioned)\u2014would not that activity, I say, that encouragement,\ninspire in all parts of _Europe_ an eagerness for labour, necessarily\nfollowed by an increase of _real_ wealth, a creation of new productions,\nand by an increase of that _imaginary_ wealth, still more stimulating\nthan the former, because it is its proof and its pledge, but which cannot\nbe obtained without a general increase in all the prices?\n\nWill it be said, that, on the first moment, the fall of prices would\naffect the intellects of those who can only see, but never compare? that\nthe people, for instance, would lament their being reduced to 10, from\nthe 12 they had been accustomed for some days to receive, although they\nshould pay only 5 for what cost them 6 before? In this case, keep up\nthe prices, but without exception, and export on the true principles of\nexportation: take for your guide the example set up by my countryman, the\n_American_ of _Philadelphia_, in selling dearer because you are compelled\nto do so; propose to buy dearer also, and this will be only an act of\njustice; you will see hereafter that you would at last be just, in spite\nof yourselves; be so intentionally: you cannot come down to the price of\nyour purchasers; raise their prices to a level with your own, they will\nobserve that even the first profit is not the lot of the first bidder, if\nevery one doing justice to himself bids in proportion: mean while, the\neagerness for labour goes on increasing, and by little and little the\nbenefit extends to the lowest wretch that dwells in the community; he\nfinds more work to do, and a greater reward for it.\n\nIt will be said no doubt, that this is another supposition of a general\nagreement.\u2014No, certainly not; it is enough for every one to see that\nit must be so; that it will happen without any other help than the\nprivate interest of each individual; that these private and niggardly\nmeasures, already taken, or to be taken, in order to prevent the result\nof all those personal interests, are of no use but to keep justice at a\ndistance; to multiply the number of injuries which daily take place, till\nwhat must be, comes to pass; to produce a greater evil, where it might be\nless; to substitute _forced_, to _necessary_ prices: but it is so evident\nthat wheat, and all the productions of the earth, should increase by one\ntenth, as soon as the taxes, or an accession of wealth, shall increase by\none tenth the price of the products of industry, that it is necessary to\nlay this principle as the basis of all regulations, _or else openly to\nadopt as a maxim, that agriculture should be sacrificed to industry_.\n\nThis maxim, I set forth of the correspondence required between the\nprices, together with the inconvenience of having them too much out of\nproportion with those of other nations, militates, it is true, against\nthat monstrous system of prohibitions, corporations, &c. which is the\nonly burden entailed upon us by our forefathers, _the only burden_\nwhich the present legislatures can transmit to posterity; but although\nit might be an absurdity to suppose a reform as sudden as it would be\nadvantageous, yet would it be less absurd to suppose that, the evil\nbeing once found out, the remedy will constantly be rejected? Would it\nbe less absurd to suppose, that the manufacturers, better acquainted\nwith their real interests, will persist in endeavouring to aggravate the\nevil, instead of complying with the only means of retrieving it? Would\nit be less absurd to suppose, that each of them will never perceive that\nhe pays for the privilege of ransoming in his branch of industry, by\nthe disadvantage of being himself ransomed on a thousand other objects?\n_Russia_, 30 years ago, was perhaps more distant from her present state,\nthan the unmasking of monopoly, and the knowledge of its effects, will be\nfrom its extirpation.\n\n\n\n\n_On a Cause little suspected of high Prices._\n\n\nI am not ashamed to own the prejudice I entertain against a diminution\nin the price of any thing whatever, when I observe that discouragement,\nat least in the part affected, would be the consequence of such a\ndiminution; whilst, on the contrary, a gradual, general, and proportioned\nadvance in the prices of every thing, is constantly followed by a\ngreater activity in all the branches of labour, which really increases\nthe quantity of its productions, in a proportion far superior to the\nadvance on that imaginary, _nominal_ value, acquired by fermentation;\nmy intention, therefore, cannot be to declaim against one of the most\npotent causes of the high prices prevailing in _England_, and which\nnobody, I think, has yet mentioned. This last expression shews, that I\ndo not mean here, that quantity of paper-money, to which many people, in\nmore than one kingdom, ascribe all the evil, of which the sole real part\nis the work of monopoly. I think I have proved, that it is impossible\nthere should long remain in circulation any paper above the necessary\nquantity: all would flock to the Bank to be paid in cash, had not the\nBank enough of it to discharge her notes, when presented, with such\nreadiness as to leave no doubt of the validity of those other notes,\nwhich, in the natural course of things, would not be presented there to\nbe paid in money. The Bank would derive very little advantage from the\nmomentary cheat of paying off large sums in sixpences; this legerdemain\nis admirable, but can suffice only to correspond to the wanton tricks\nsometimes played by great politicians, to give the Bank a momentary\ntrouble. It is, _then_, necessary to rock those children, whom great men\nmake it their amusement to scare; and they must be rocked till they are\nfast asleep, or till the great men are tired of making faces at them.\nAfter the farce is over, the children wake, and do not even remember to\nhave been frightened; money is found wherever it is necessary, and every\nthing returns to that order which it is every one\u2019s interest to maintain.\n\nWhat then is that other cause, so active, so cogent, not of that\nextravagant price which monopoly alone can occasion, but of that price\nrather above the _necessary_ one, which gives to every thing an increase\nof vigour? It is credit. It is that prodigious talisman which realises\nall that it conceives, since all that it conceives has the same advantage\nas reality. How many capitals would never have existed, had not credit\nsupposed them several years before they did really exist? How fill up\nthe real chasm of capitals, which may, in an instant, suspend a hundred\nmanufactories in a kingdom, and, by that suspension, ruin, starve, the\ntrader, the merchant, the manufacturer, the mechanic, all, except the\nfarmer, whether proprietor or tenant, who, by the counter-blow, could not\ndie of hunger, but in real misery on his stacks of wheat, which he would\nno longer attempt to reproduce.\n\nThat man is ignorant of his own value, who, pen in hand, weighs,\ncalculates, measures time, distances, expenditure, obstacles, facilities,\noccurrences; and whose signature, on account of the supposed exactness\nof his combinations, will soon after produce, at two or three hundred\nleagues distance, and in fifty places on the road, the same effect which\nwould have resulted from the real possession of the object of which\nthis signature is the pledge. If he shares with all those whom he makes\neasy, re-animates, or puts in action, the benefit which they derive from\nthe speed, as well as from the supposed certainty of his operations,\nundoubtedly no one will dispute his title to the reward; and yet we shall\nsee presently, that this medal is not without its reverse, _supposing an\nadvance in prices to be an inconvenience_.\n\nI shall apply the principle to a fact very well known in _England_.\n\nIn the year 1762, about 2000_l._ sterling, carried to the island of\n_Grenada_, was there received with that veneration due to gold when we\nhave been years without seeing any, and have not yet forgot its virtues.\n\nThe above sum regulated the markets; coffee was set up at eight or ten\npence _per_ pound; sugars sold _per_ quintal thirty or forty shillings\ncurrency; the inhabitants were in perfect ecstacy: I shall say nothing of\nthe device practised in order to _hook in_, by means of those 2000_l._\nabout thirty times the value of that sum, and yet satisfy every body:\nthat is foreign to my subject; but I will say, with pleasure, that an\nhonest gentleman, moved at the distressed situation of another who was\ndunned by merciless creditors, gave him in hard cash a trifling part\nof the sum he wanted, and for the remainder furnished him with his own\nbills of exchange on _London_, assuring him that those to whom they might\nbe presented would take them for cash without any demur. Those bills\nhad fully the promised effect; the same gentleman obliged several other\npersons; the benefactor soon met with competitors, all difficulties\ndisappeared by means of scraps of paper on _London_, and the debtor who,\non the landing of the precious metal, had deemed himself too lucky to\nsell his coffee at ten-pence and his sugar at 40 shillings, now offered\nimpudently his bill on _London_, indorsed by some patron, if a creditor\nrefused to give him 45 shillings for his sugar, and twelve-pence for his\ncoffee.\n\nGold, attracted by the first homage paid to it, came in plenty, and\nfell in value by the establishment of credit; it afterwards took\nanother course, and went, no doubt, somewhere else to supply the want\nof credit, and pave the way to it. From that moment very little money\ncame to _Grenada_, and no one ever wished for more; but then the price\nof commodities was advanced, and the readiness with which goods, to the\namount of several thousand pounds sterling, were delivered to such a\nplanter as, six months before, would not have presumed to demand the\nsixth part of them, did not permit him to start any objection against\nthe prices set on the goods he stood in need of, when he thought himself\nindemnified for the excess in those prices, by that at which his\nwere rated, _and by the time granted him to make good his payments_.\nThe _Grenadians_ abused this credit, as they did in _Scotland_, and\nunfortunately at the same period. But this is not the matter in point;\nthe present object is, that the establishment of credit in _Grenada_\nenhanced the price of every thing there, and that the encouragement\nand activity resulting from that increase doubled, in the space of six\nyears, the real quantity of the products in that colony, whilst credit\nhad, in the end, increased its nominal value hardly one tenth. In 1764\nthe exports of _Grenada_ amounted to 206,889_l._; in 1770, they were at\n433,421_l._; two years after, they rose as high as 492,974_l._: it may\nbe added, that in _England_, thanks to the extension of that miracle\nwrought by credit, the benefit arising from those new products, and the\nnecessity of furnishing the balance thereof in merchandise, propagated,\nif I may be allowed the expression, from county to county, the necessary\nmeans of _consuming_, that is to say, of _realising_, that augmentation\nof wealth, whose price was constantly kept up by the additional\nconsumption of all kinds which followed it: such is the usual chain.\n\nIn effect, do but observe how easily a creditable merchant buys from\nthe manufacturer, payable at twelve months, an enormous stock of goods,\nwhich he is himself obliged to sell, either to the consumer or to the\nretailer, at twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four months credit, and which\noften are not totally paid for at the end of three years. What difference\nin the prices must be the consequence of that series of _facilities_! Are\nhigh prices an evil? Put an end to credit, nothing more easy; nothing\nmore is required, than to suffer to lie dormant all those laws, which\nsecure to the creditor, the payment of his advances at the precise time\nwhen they become demandable: it is that certitude of being repaid, at\nthe needful hour, that often induces the creditor himself to borrow, in\norder to extricate a debtor, whom he knows to be indiscreet, but from\nwhose custom he derives a considerable yearly profit, upon a prodigious\nconsumption; a profit he would lose, by being less indulgent: take away\nfrom the creditor the certainty of extorting his repayment, if it should\nbe refused at a moment when a critical event should render such rigour\nindispensable, credit is destroyed, _as well as_ the consumption which\nfollowed it, _as well as_ the production of the earth which could not be\npaid, but by those manufactories annihilated by the want of consumption:\ncross the Straits of _Calais_, and (in order to console the _worshippers\nof the balance_) add, _as well as_ thousands of acres of vineyards in\n_France_, the produce of which _strips England_ annually of so vast\na sum! _as well as_ thousands of acres in _Italy_, set apart for the\nrearing of silk-worms, and the culture of olive-trees, which swallow up\na prodigious sum of _English_ money; _as well as_ thousands of acres\nin _Silesia_, where they cultivate the hemp which _English_ money buys\nin that country; _as well as_ thousands of acres in _Russia_ and in\n_Sweden_, whence we are obliged to import, at the expence of so much\n_English_ money, that immense quantity of timber, iron, canvass\u2014articles\nwhich would become useless by the extinction of credit, and the\ndestruction of that trade, of which credit was the very soul;\u2014the chain\nwould lead us too far. It is sufficiently evident, that then all the\ngoods remaining unsold could not be purchased but with ready money, and\n_then_ indeed every thing would be excessively cheap. Would all that be\nfor the best?\u2014In a word, give up all thoughts of riches, or submit to the\nhighest prices; but let those high prices come to you from the profusion\nof wealth universally diffused, and not from the tyranny of your own\nmonopoly.\n\n\n\n\n_The happy Issue of a desperate Combat between Monopoly and some private\nInterests._\n\n\nThe scene of this combat does not lie in _England_; we have seen that\nthere they think of nothing more than to keep the balance even, and make\nup, as fast as possible, each in his own department, for the injustice\ngranted to the importunity and cupidity of others, without any other\ninconvenience arising therefrom, than that of having a very large\nsurplus, excessively dear, and that of not being able to procure what\nis wanted at the lowest rate, nor of the best quality. Even Smuggling,\nwhich follows certain regulations, with bludgeons and pistols in hand,\ncannot produce any great effect on the sum of national labour, though it\nmay perhaps considerably influence the revenue of the Exchequer; it is\nprobable that the smuggler exports as much _English_ work into _France_\nas he imports of _French_ work into _England_; and that, in this respect,\nthe gain of the most fortunate individual comes to very little: my\nintention is, to speak here of a combat, which has lasted a hundred years\nbetween the _French_ FAIR trader and the _American_ smuggler.\n\nThe system of administration adopted under Mons. _Sartine_, for the\n_French_ colonies, a system, for which they are indebted to ten years\nlabour of Mr. _Malouit_, the present Intendant of _Toulon_, permits us\nto speak now of that combat, and to descry the dawn of a more serene\nday, opening upon those colonies; till then, I should not have hesitated\nto call them unfortunate, _in regard to their means_, if the private\ninterest of the inhabitants, as well as that of the general-officers,\nIntendants and Directors of the Domain, (interests never combined but\namongst the latter) had not moderated the effects of that dreadful\npunishment the galleys, denounced at the request of the _French_\nmerchants, against any one who should presume to import a negro or a\ncheese from the _English_ islands into the _French_ colonies, however\ngood the one, however industrious the other might be; and whatever\nadvantage might be gained by paying for both in molasses which the\nplanter was obliged to throw away, _because the French merchants would\nnot buy it_.\n\nIt is true, that the humanity of the _great_ smugglers has often suffered\nthe _little_ ones to escape, before or after sentence, (the negro and the\ncheese being duly seised); and that a dozen of the little smugglers whom\nthe policy of the great ones sacrificed _by installments_ to the clamours\nof the merchant, were nearly the only victims of that barbarous law, the\nstrict execution of which would have deprived _France_,\n\nFirst, Of the fifth part, at least, of the present revenue arising to her\nfrom her colonies;\n\nSecondly, Of all those branches of industry to which such an addition of\nrevenue gives constant life;\n\nThirdly, Of all the profit which the _fair_ trader, the instigator of\nthat barbarous law, gets annually on the importations and exportations\nwhich that additional income requires;\n\nFourthly, Of the duties which the King\u2019s treasury receives directly, or\nindirectly, from the one and the other; (it is impossible to estimate\nthis article.)\n\nFifthly, and in fine, of the assistance which the State derives for\nthe Royal navy, from that increase in its trading one, which became\nnecessary after the increase of a revenue, due to people who should have\nbeen sent to the galleys, had they been caught in the flagrancy of such\na crime. One half of the cotton and coffee which is gathered at _St.\nDomingo_, _Martinico_, _Guadaloupe_, and _Grand Terre_ above all, owes\nits existence to negroes, constantly furnished to the _French_ smuggler,\nboth great and small, by the _English_ merchant, the natural, _and as\nit plainly appears_, the necessary enemy to _France_ and her trade;\nthe quantity of sugar and indigo which in the said colonies owes its\nexistence to the same means, is much more than necessary to make up that\nfifth of the revenue, the glory of which may be claimed by the smuggler,\nthough the _fair_ trader comes in for a share in the profits.\n\nAny one desirous to have this fact confirmed, may be informed of it by\nnine tenths of the _French_ planters, provided they be taught that the\ntime is now come, when every useful truth may be spoken, even with\nenergy, when accompanied by decency. This once ascertained, he is no\nnative of _America_ who will refuse his evidence; an _American_ believes\nin every thing that is just and reasonable, the very instant that it is\npronounced.\n\nI sincerely wish that smuggling might produce in _England_ the same\ngood it has done to the _French_ colonies; this would appear to me very\njust, and the more so, since it will not be the fault of the _British_\ncommerce, if that blessed contraband, after having given life to\n_America_, does not spread the same animation every where, _Great Britain\nexcepted_. I have heard an _English_ manufacturer prove at the bar of the\nHouse of Lords, that his manufactory was in want of a special patronage,\nby so much the more, as the size and brittleness of his ware made it a\ndifficult point for him to smuggle it over to the continent, and as a\nduty of 30 _per cent._ had been lately laid upon it, in the two countries\nwhere it concerned him most to have it exported. Amongst other questions\nthat were put to him, I remarked four, which would have stunned me, had\nI been in his place. One of these questions was as follows: \u201cHave you\nnot heard that that 30 _per cent._ of which you complain, was laid in\nconsequence of some prohibitions, or extra duties imposed in _England_\non some articles imported from those very countries which you allude\nto?\u201d I could make nothing of the manufacturer\u2019s answers; they were so\nlong-winded, they had been so carefully studied, they were so very full\nof a policy which I do not understand, that it became impossible for me\nto class them under any heads in my memory.\n\n\n\n\n_Reflexions on a very strange Revolution in ~France~._\n\n\nA General maxim, almost universally adopted beyond contradiction, and the\nfoundation of an hundred regulations, enforced from pole to pole, is,\nthat it is essential for all national commodities to be at the lowest\nprice, in order that foreign trade may turn out to the best advantage;\nthat is to say, for the native traders to be able to dispose abroad of\nthe products of national industry, at a cheaper rate than any other\nnation can sell those of her own. Certain it is, that the less price\nnational commodities will bring, the less of the products of national\nindustry will be necessary to pay them off, the more of course will\nthere remain of those products to stock the foreign markets, and the\nmore also will the foreign purchaser be gratified by the reduced price\nat which they may be given, to the detriment of the land proprietor of\nthe nation; this is so self-evident that it cannot be withstood. This,\nmethinks, is carrying to an excess the principles of Christian charity,\nif the Legislators are land proprietors; it is a shameful abuse of power,\nif the Legislators are at the head of manufactures; and in either case\none must be blind to the necessity of keeping up an even balance between\nagriculture and industry.\u2014_Had not Nature militated under hand, and with\nsome advantage against the dreams of speculators in this respect, and\nagainst the much more dangerous surreptions of cupidity, to what state\nof abjection and misery would not agriculture be now reduced in all\ncountries!_\n\nI have said, that the price of every thing would perhaps be now in\n_France_, very little different from what it was 40 years ago, had it\nnot been for an eventual circumstance, (I might have said a regulation,)\nwhich a few years ago tertiated, at least, the fortune of every subject\nin that kingdom;\u2014nominally at first, it is true; but afterwards in\nreality, owing to the prodigious encouragement that ensued; I mean the\nregulation which permitted the exportation of wheat, and authorised each\nof the _French_ Provinces not to consider herself as a stranger to all\nthe others. I shall only make a few reflexions on a matter which might\nfurnish enough to fill a volume.\n\nFirst, The adopted maxim of the pretended advantage of enjoying the\nnational commodities at the lowest prices, _for the better encouragement\nof industry_, was not held less sacred at the time the regulation took\nplace, than when that maxim was considered as the basis of the system of\nexportation _the most advantageous to the kingdom_, and the condition\n(_sine qu\u00e2 non_) of the many wonders that might be expected therefrom,\ntowards an increase of wealth.\u2e3aYet if there exist a regulation calculated\nto operate in diametrical opposition to the _sacred maxim_, it is clearly\nthe freedom of the corn trade; to be convinced of this truth, one need\nbut attend to its effect in _France_. The little success I have met\nwith in my endeavours to come, in this respect, at some particulars\nwhich might perhaps have given me a few ideas, confines me to what I\ncan gather from recollection; but with truth I can say that my memory\nseldom deceives me on the abstracts it presents to my mind. The reader\nmay perceive, that the summary I now stand in need of, has no manner\nof connexion with the little springs that were put in play to ruin the\nauthor of the scheme; the chief and true point, is, that all secret\nintrigues, all public combinations, ended only in occasioning a reform\nin what was deemed abusive, in a regulation the advantages of which\nwere fully demonstrated; and that the price of wheat, after having\ntertiated, doubled, trebled perhaps by the help of the forestallers,\nfrom whose abilities were expected the repeal of the law and the fall\nof its devisers, was fixed at last between one half and three fourths\nabove the price, as it was upon the medium of ten years preceding the\nregulation. It is easily conceived that the price of wheat dictated that\nof all other commodities; in effect, previous to the last war, the only\ndecisive period in the present point, the nominal revenue of the lands\nin _France_, increased by one half at least of what it was 15 years\nbefore;\u2014then, commodities were, upon the whole, dearer by one half; yet\nthe maxim was held _sacred_ still, and is not less so at the present\ntime\u2014in _England_ as well as in _France_;\u2014nevertheless I can see no\nmedium; either the maxim is absurd in itself, or _French_ industry has\nlost one third of its benefits by a regulation which tertiated, almost\nsuddenly, the price of all productions in _France_.\n\nSecondly, In order that industry may be said to have lost that third, the\nincrease of revenue, yielded by the land to its proprietor, must have\nbeen cast into some national _vortex_, or sent into some foreign one, or\nconcealed in the earth by the suspicious proprietor; for if the surplus\nof the landed revenue has occasioned a greater demand for and consumption\nof the products of industry, and more culture of the land, industry, by\nraising the price of her goods on the very first increase of the demand,\nhas obtained in the first year, her first share in that accession of\nwealth; and she could not miss the second, so soon as a larger sum of\nsavings bestowed upon the lands, had brought about what they never fail\nto produce, I mean, more productions, and soon after a greater demand for\ngoods, and _soon after_ again more goods to answer the additional demands.\n\nThirdly, If that sudden advance in the price of provisions, ended only\nin an increase almost equally sudden in the price of the products of\nindustry, there could not be then any inconvenience, either to industry\nor agriculture, in a sudden and proportionate rise which preserved\nthe former equilibrium, and presented the same correspondence between\nthe two revenues; (the only thing that can materially affect the two\n_capitalists_, though neither of them think about it.)\n\nFourthly, If there has been no inconvenience in so considerable but\nproportionable increase in the prices, _coming from agriculture_, where\ncould be the inconvenience in a proportioned increase, equally sudden and\ngeneral if _it should come_ from industry?\n\nFifthly, What difference can there be between a regulation which raises\nthe landed revenue in a kingdom, from 6 to 9, followed by a re-action in\nindustry, which raises equally to 9 what usually went for 6; and another\nregulation which would begin the same operation in industry, and should\nbe equally followed by a proportionable re-action in agriculture?\n\nSixthly, When, by a regulation respecting the corn, industry is at\nliberty to enhance the price of her goods, in the same proportion as\nthe effects of the regulation have raised the products of agriculture,\ncannot a regulation that concerns or imposes taxes, and by which\nindustry is forced to increase her prices by the full amount of the\ntaxes,\u2014cannot such a regulation, I say, permit the cultivator, without\ninconvenience, to advance the price of the productions of the earth, in\nthe same proportion as the taxes, or the regulation concerning them, have\nincreased that of the products of industry?\n\nSeventhly, Let us suppose that the operation is effected, and followed\nby the sum of money which a nominal revenue, grown more considerable,\nrequires for the circulation; can there exist then the most trifling\ndifference between the present state of any individuals in the nation,\nand the state they were in previous to their being loaded with that\nenormous burden, called taxes?\n\nEighthly, If after enquiry, the only answer that could be given should be\na negative, would it not be profitable to let the public into the secret,\nin order that after having observed a very singular analogy between a\nyoung nymph loaded with a column of several thousand pounds weight of\nair, each of them as heavy as if it were of lead, and the _French_ as\nwell as the _English_ loaded annually, constantly, in the same manner,\nthe one with 600 millions of _livres Tournois_, the other with 14 or\n15 millions of pounds sterling, they should be led further to observe,\nwith what agility, what graces, what sprightliness, the young dancer\nplays with her load\u2014\u201ctrips it along on the fantastic toe,\u201d and with what\ngrimaces, what groans, what lamentations, the two vigorous nations shrink\nunder a burden which is not more sensible than air, from the instant that\nit is as perfectly divided?\n\nI must here go some steps back:\n\nNinthly, If the nullity of the burden depended on the equality with which\nit should be divided, and if this equality should depend on an addition\nto the supposed burden, might it not be expected (not from the tricks of\ncustomary seduction, or from the shorter method of authority, but from\nall the means calculated to enforce conviction) that the nation would\nfind herself less aggrieved by an additional tax, which would tend to\nequalise the weight, than she could be by an increase of taxes laid for\nthe purpose of effecting a reimbursement, which, upon a second thought,\nno one can wish for?\n\nTenthly, Before the regulation alluded to, wheat was, in _France_, one\nthird or one half cheaper than it is at this day; the rest of the other\nproductions of the earth stood in the same proportion: in _England_, at\nthat very time, the price of wheat differed very little from what it now\nis. How could _England then_ maintain a competition\u2014a combat, as it were,\nof exportation, against her _natural_ enemy (the _French_ industry), so\nlightly, so advantageously armed by the low price of the commodities in\n_France_?\u2014If the maxim is as just as it is held _sacred_, surely _France_\nmust have derived a prodigious benefit from the barricadoes by which the\nexportation of wheat was prevented, even from one Province to another,\nin order that it should be in all at the lowest possible price:\u2014it\nfollows also that _England_, already compelled by her taxes, her internal\nmonopoly, and her riches, to raise the price of her wheat at home, must\nhave undergone dreadful inconveniences, by availing herself, as she has\never done, of the least dearth abroad, to make that very wheat dearer in\n_England_, whilst she was going to diminish its price wherever scarcity\nhad made it excessive.\n\nEleventhly, If _France_ has obtained such wonderful advantages from\nher internal as well as external barriers, it is not in respect to her\nagriculture; her agriculture has clearly lost, not only that part of\nthe value in her productions, of which she was daily deprived by this\nbarrier, but also the encouragement which a gradual increase in the price\nof the productions would have occasioned, to increase their quantity: it\nis therefore by the exportation of the products of her industry, which,\nbeing sold at a price below that of all other nations, have procured her\nin money that prodigious balance of exported goods, _which the wretched\nstate of the national cultivator did not permit him to pay for_:\u2014but\nobserve, that the _French_ exportation, carried on with that advantage\n(pretended to be so very considerable) of the low price of national\ncommodities, brought no more money to _France_, than that which she\nwanted for the five articles I have mentioned before, when treating of\nthe balance of _England_. This matter I hope I shall set in the fullest\nblaze of evidence.\u2014But, on the other hand, observe also that _England_,\nby an exportation carried on with the utmost regularity, under the\nsupposed disadvantage of her commodities being rated much higher than\nthose of her competitors, a rate which she even increased herself, by\nthe exportation of wheat, which she encouraged by premiums\u2014_by premiums,\ndestructive of the sacred maxim_; observe, I say, that under that\ndisadvantage, in spite of those inconsistencies, as fortunate as they are\nreal and palpable, _England_, nevertheless, has not failed to procure the\nmoney wanted for the five articles, the only ones that can give any value\nto money.\u2014Shall it be said that _France_ would have obtained a balance\nin money much less considerable, if she had not kept her prices so low,\nif she had acted with less respect to the maxim?\u2014Shall it be said, that\nthe balance in money would have been far more favourable to _England_,\nhad not the price of her commodities been so high at home; if she had\nmore consistently acted upon the maxim; if, above all, she had prohibited\nthe exportation of wheat, which is so often lamented, and even sometimes\nso loudly complained of by her manufacturers?\u2014This indeed would be to\nappropriate great merit to the resource of hiding money under ground,\nwhen we cannot flatter ourselves with the thoughts of having too much of\nit, but at the expence of agriculture: but no matter; let us see whether\nthe inference be just.\n\nTwelfthly, Had _France_ been indebted to the disparagement in the prices\nof her commodities, for the advantage of procuring the money wanted for\nthe five articles before mentioned, she would have found herself in the\nimpossibility of answering that want, as soon as, by the new regulation,\nthose commodities were restored to their natural value, as soon as the\nliberty of exporting wheat had raised its price almost to the level of\nthat which it bore in _England_.\u2014Now will it be said, that ever since\nthe landed revenue in _France_ has risen from 40 to 50 _per cent._ by\nan advance in the price of commodities, less bullion has been spent by\nthe _French_ in plate, in gilding, and other articles of luxury?\u2014Will\nit be said that _France_ stood in need of the money necessary to\nsettle in cash with her foreign correspondents, when this resource\nfrom circumstances became preferable to the mode of paying in bills of\nexchange?\u2014Will it be said that she fell short of it for all those Jewish\nand miserable operations, or for that reciprocally beneficial smuggling\nwith her neighbours?\u2014Will it be said, that her circulation, which,\nbeyond any doubt, required a more considerable mass of money, as soon as\nher revenue had tertiated, has suffered by that necessity of a higher\nbalance, become impossible (according to the maxim) as soon as it grew\nindispensable?\u2014Will it be said, that her industry has lingered away as\nsoon as her agriculture has been more able to enliven it?\u2014Yet all these\nabsurdities must be admitted, or it must be acknowledged that the price\nof commodities may be tertiated, or doubled in a nation, not only without\ninjuring industry, whose business it is to keep within the kingdom all\nthe money wanted for circulation, but even with securing to the nation\na more considerable balance in money, since it must become so whenever\nthe price of every thing is raised one third, and perhaps more than\none half.\u2014The _sacred maxim_ therefore has not even common sense, _when\napplied to the internal trade of the State_.\n\nThirteenthly, If _France_, who has not the assistance of paper-money,\ndid actually procure so clearly to herself an annual balance more\nconsiderable in money, as soon as she had tertiated her revenue, it\nfollows that _England_ must, really, have experienced a competition much\nmore disagreeable, from that very circumstance from which, _according\nto the maxim_, she had less reason to fear it; for whilst the price\nof commodities was below _par_ in _France_, it is clear that having\nno _national vortex_, she required less money for the circulation of\na revenue of 100 than for one of 150: it was therefore more to the\nadvantage of _England_, _in spite of the maxim_, that the commodities\nshould be at a low price in _France_, than to have them raised 50 _per\ncent._ The _sacred maxim_ then is destitute of common sense, _when\napplied to foreign trade, to the competition abroad_.\n\nFourteenthly, But if the circumstance which drove _France_ to the\nnecessity of acquiring a greater balance in real cash, stood at a\nvery small distance from another circumstance by which _England_\nwas compelled to procure one still more considerable, for a general\nre-coining of her guineas; and if _France_ and _England_ have done each\nother no material injury in this kind of competition, (this is proved\nby the fact, since both nations have equally and certainly, ever since,\nprocured the annual balance which they wanted); may it not be fairly\nconcluded, that _England_ has been no loser, by a revolution in the price\nof wheat, which enriched _France_ by tertiating her revenue, and forced\nher to receive annually, in cash, a balance far greater than she did\nprevious to that revolution?\n\nFifteenthly, Now if _England_, since the revolution in the _French_\nprices, has obtained as much bullion as she wished for, or rather\nall that which she could lay out on the five articles of her common\nexpenditure, and for the additional circumstance of a re-coinage, whilst\non the other hand _France_ had all her wants supplied with the greater\nease, may it not be inferred that _England_ could have gained nothing,\neven upon the supposition that the annual supply of money, become\nnecessary to _France_, had been less considerable, that is to say,\neven if the _French_ commodities had remained in their former state of\ndisparagement?\n\nSixteenthly, If that increase of prices in the landed revenue has not\nbeen restrained to _France_; if it be a fact, as all travellers pretend\nto have observed, that all the other parts of _Europe_ have experienced\nthe same revolution, the same encouragement, the same success, except the\ndifference produced in some places by the singularity of certain laws;\nmay it not be concluded, that although _England_ has lost nothing by the\nrevolution, although _France_ has proved a gainer by it, other nations\nhave also enriched themselves, namely, one tenth, those where the prices\nhave been advanced a tenth; a ninth, those where the prices have been\nraised one quarter; one half, those where the prices have risen one half,\n&c. independently of an increase still more essential, _viz._ that of the\nquantity of the productions of the earth, _which always closely follows\nthat of their prices_.\n\nSeventeenthly, Were one to reflect, that this increase in the prices, in\nregard to the productions of the earth, is always followed by a similar\nincrease with respect to the products of industry, which thereby receives\nthe same encouragement; if, after examination, no one can harbour any\ndoubt of the fact; would it be an easy matter, even with the help of\nthe _sacred maxim_, to persuade any nation, whose prices have been\ndoubled, to reduce the nominal of her revenue from 20 to 18, in order\nto get the advantage in the competition with another nation who, by\nsome disagreeable circumstances, should have been obliged to raise her\nproducts from 20 to 22, as _England_ is compelled to do? Would not one,\non the contrary, conjecture that every wise nation will follow the advice\nof the _American_ of _Philadelphia_, _i. e._ that she will not hesitate\nto raise equally her own products from 20 to 22, certain, as she will\nbe by this means, to give fresh encouragement both to her agriculture\nand her industry, and not to hurt in the least the interest of the\nnation whom those disagreeable circumstances should have compelled that\nrise from 20 to 22; compelled, I say, without procuring for her that\nencouragement which cannot spring from such a rise, _but in as much as it\nis not necessitated by taxes_?\n\nEighteenthly, Is it not even probable that every wise nation will be\nsensible that there is but one way to carry on, without being constantly\nduped, a commerce with another nation, obliged to raise the price of her\ngoods; _viz._ to raise, in the same proportion, those which are given in\nexchange?\u2014This, some will say, is an indirect advice which I take upon\nme to give to industry; nothing more useless, will they add; industry\nin all countries never fails making that calculation.\u2014I do not assume\nthe liberty of advising industry;\u2014Industry is far better acquainted,\nthan I am, with her own interest: it is to agriculture I presume to give\nadvice; and this I have an incontestable right to do, since I myself\nam a cultivator, an _American_ cultivator, and that my fortune cannot\nincrease, nor even stand as it is, but with that of my brethren, the\ncultivators throughout all _Europe_, whose consumption is as essential\nto me, in regard to sugars, cottons, coffee, indigo, &c. as mine is\nessential to them, with respect to wines, flour, oils, hemp, iron, &c.\nHow is it possible to charge them with an advanced price on the goods\nthey purchase, without diminishing their means of buying, _unless they\nraise their own commodities equally with the above goods_?\u2014How can one\ndiminish their power of buying, without diminishing also my resources\nfor a sale?\u2014How can one diminish my resources for a sale, without\ndiminishing my means of production?\u2014And how is it possible to put a stop\nto the productions of _America_, without crushing in the very bud all the\n_European_ productions, _which are to pay for them_?\u2014There is not the\nleast doubt, but that, between merchant and merchant, alien or native,\nthere never is any difficulty: nothing more candid than their respective\nconduct; never a word about prices; each fixes his own, and it often\nhappens that a bale of goods has been sold ten times upon the invoice,\nand never opened:\u2014But when a merchant, no matter of what nation, says to\nhis customer, no matter of what country; _English goods have increased\nin price from 20 to 22, I cannot have them for less_; it is essential\nfor every land proprietor, from Pole to Pole, to know that he must not\nhesitate to answer: _You cannot come down to me, give me leave to get up\nto you_; or, in other words, _I also advance my prices from 20 to 22,\nso that every thing is in its due order, and the cock of the balance\nstands still in its place_. On this principle, clearly evident and of an\nirrefragable necessity, I maintain that it is _England_, successively\ncompelled, as well by her wealth, as by her taxes and monopoly, to\nincrease her prices at home,\u2014_England_, trading to all parts of _Europe_,\nmore largely than any other country,\u2014it is _England_, I say, who, to\nthis day, has raised the prices of every thing all over _Europe_; and I\ninsist, that _England_, once more obliged to carry those prices still\nhigher, once more will compel _Europe_ to follow her example, and that\nall _Europe_ will grow richer by her means, (as has been the case\nhitherto) on account of the encouragement which this increase will give\nin all countries, where _England_ may think fit to continue or extend her\ntrade on fair and equitable principles.\n\nIt is certain, that one cannot, without some reflexion, comprehend that\nchain composed of so many incoherent, so widely distant links, that\nunion, that mutual dependance of interests, in appearance so opposite\nto each other; and that, even with the assistance of a few _hypotheses_\nsufficient to give an idea of the whole, the only confession subscribed\nto by the reader, will be, that they imply no palpable contradiction,\nbut that they are nevertheless the mere offspring of imagination, and\nought to be ranked amongst non-entities. Yet the two _hypotheses_ of\nwhich _Rome_ seemed to be the subject, were no more, if we except the\npaper-currency, than the type of the revolution which took place in\n_France_ at the time of the regulation I have spoken of,\u2014a regulation,\nwhich in less than two years increased the wealth of that nation from 16\nto 24, 50 _per cent._; as if the _French_ had been at last made sensible,\nthat _England_ could not work for herself without working for them, and\nthat consequently they had a right to say with my _Roman_: _~England~\nis rich to the amount of 24, only because she denominates 24 that same\nquantity of wheat which our barricadoes and barriers have obliged us to\ncall only 16 in our country; the only thing to be done therefore, is to\nset fire to our barricadoes, and break down our barriers, that henceforth\nthe same 16 may be denominated 24, and all at once we shall be in fact as\nrich as ~England~, without having been so judiciously at work._\n\nAnother advantage that would accrue from that uniformity, nearly general,\nin all prices, if one would lend an helping hand to Nature, after having\nbeen convinced of the impossibility of reaping any other benefit from\nthe obstacles thrown in her way, but the sad advantage of retarding her\nprogress;\u2014another advantage, I say, that would accrue from that kind\nof uniformity in prices, which undergoes no alteration, but from the\nwants and demands, is, that all that monstrous system of prohibitions\nor equivalent restrictions, must crumble of itself: for, with what face\ncould a national manufacturer solicit the means and privilege of making\nhis own countrymen pay 10 _per cent._ dearer for those goods, which\nanother nation tenders to them at 10 _per cent._ cheaper, notwithstanding\nthe expence of exportation? What reasons could he urge when, instead of\nanswering, a cultivator should rise in the national council, and ask,\nfor the exportation of corn, an absurd premium which would instantly\nenhance its price 25 _per cent._?\u2014But the game of imports and exports to\nwhich this last observation alludes, requires to be treated in a separate\narticle which it is not yet time to enter upon; all we have now to do\nis to think on the means of giving a free circulation to the revenue of\nall _Europe_, supposed to be increased in the proportion of 20 to 22, on\naccount of the same increase necessary in _England_ to pay three millions\ninterest, without any one being the poorer for it. I shall say nothing of\nthe facility of paper-currency, when the inutility of a national robbery\nshall be once generally acknowledged.\n\nNineteenthly and lastly, If we are frightened by the necessity of a\nbalance in money, every where more considerable, in order to circulate\nevery where, a revenue increased from 20 to 22, to face the indispensable\nrise in the prices of _England_, who trades to all parts of the globe;\n(when we consider besides, that _France_ and _England_ are by the same\nreason obliged to add to their respective balance already so loaded,)\nit appears to me, that, after a retrospective view of what has passed,\none may readily be convinced, that whenever money becomes necessary for\ncirculation, wherever nothing more is required to circulate and balance\nobjects really existing, and equal to each other, there are always\npeople enough ready to carry money thither; and that this operation, _as\nall those that are beneficial to society_, is generally effected when\nit is neither counteracted nor encouraged, _without any one perceiving\nit_.\u2014Nevertheless it must be confessed, that the pretentions set up by\n_France_, in regard to a balance, are as terrible, as formidable, as\nthose of _England_, due regard being paid to the difference between the\nexports of both; I shall examine these pretensions as I have done those\nof _England_, and bring them besides closer to each other, that they may\nbe more properly estimated.\n\n\n\n\n_The pretended Balance of ~France~ in point of Trade._\n\n\nThe Work of Mr. _Necker_ on the _French_ finances, is in my judgement,\nfor that nation, the most precious work that this age has produced;\nit is a sword hanging over the head of whoever shall fill up that\ndepartment during the reign of the present King, and of all those of his\nsuccessors whom God shall bless with a soul like his. That work would\nstill be precious, though it should serve only to expose the knavery or\nthe incapacity of those who pretended that _France_, preparing for a\nwar which required the creation of a navy, without which she could not\ncarry it on, forced to have recourse to new loans proportionate to such\nan undertaking, and weighed down, as it was said, by the load of the old\ntaxes imposed for discharging the interest of her former debts, was again\non the eve of laying new imposts, in spite of herself, and perhaps of\nhaving recourse to those degrading reductions, so lightly, yet so often\npractised before. The first public operation of Mr. _Necker_ (his _Compte\nrendu_) inspired every one with the enthusiastic spirit of an unbounded\nconfidence, wherever nothing was foreseen but the discouragement arising\nfrom discredit. He did not create anything, it is true; but he dispelled\nthe clouds which had hitherto concealed what really existed; he restored\norder where confusion reigned before, and treated the mechanical part\nof the finances, like a merchant willing at all times to have it in\nhis power to compare his undertakings with his means, his plans with\nhis resources. No other step could be taken at first. I have no kind\nof connexion with Mr. _Necker_, neither direct nor indirect; nor am I\nbound to him by the ties of friendship, interest, or gratitude; and,\nbesides, it is not my intention either to praise, or to censure; yet I\ncannot forbear to observe, that Mr. _Necker_, entirely circumscribed by\nthe circumstances of the time, charged with the triple load of clearing\nup what was passed, supplying present wants, and guarding against future\nevents, could only loosely survey, regret, and prepare, what a situation\nso critical did not permit him to undertake. His being displaced, left\nhim no other advantage than that of informing the public of what he\nintended to do; and the manner in which the nation has received the\nwork wherein he recorded his projects, is at the same time a tribute\nof the national esteem for the man who planned them, and a pledge of\nthe national gratitude, even for any one of his successors, who should\nconfine himself to carry them into execution.\n\nWhatever I have hitherto said, whatever may drop from my pen in the\nsequel, in contradiction to some of Mr. _Necker_\u2019s opinions, was written\nlong before the publication of his work, and in no degree detracts from\nthe solidity of his views. What he devised was perhaps the best that\ncould possibly be imagined in the actual state of things, and according\nto the received system:\u2014But is that system the best?\u2014I subscribe to\nhis principle concerning the precautions to be taken, and the slowness\nof the march necessary even through all the paths that may lead to _the\nbest_; but that best, what is it? _France_ cannot boast of having found\nit\u2014read the work of Mr. _Necker_; _England_ cannot boast of having found\nit\u2014read the debates of both Houses of Parliament:\u2014And do I dare to offer\nmy thoughts!\u2014Yes:\u2014two children, it is said, found what it was necessary\nto find, in order to the discovery of immense bodies of light, at a\ndistance where nothing was suspected but the limits of creation.\u2014Were my\nthoughts only plausible, they ought to be thoroughly investigated; they\nconcern the State, they concern mankind at large:\u2014if they prove just, to\nsay that they are impracticable on account of the shackles with which\nour forefathers have loaded us, is to say nothing but with regard to the\nfleeting moment in which I speak, _already so far off from us_; but to\nfeel then that we should not add new shackles to those we endure already,\nwould be a great point gained; to scrutinise afterwards the ancient\nopinions, without exception; to analyse the principles on which pretended\nimpossibilities are founded; to expect nothing from seduction or from\nauthority; to desire nothing but from general conviction; to spare no\npains to make the people sensible of, and familiar with the truths that\nmight be discovered, would perhaps be a second step towards that very\nmark to which we should probably direct our course, were it not for the\npretended impossibility, the mere supposition of which casts a ridicule\nupon the very thought of looking up to it.\n\nIt is upon this plan, and under this point of view, that I purpose to\nexamine the supposed balance of _France_, in regard to trade:\u2014and I\nbegin by asking, whether there exists a nation in _Europe_, which, upon\nperusing what Mr. _Necker_ says to the present purpose, and the use made\nalmost generally in _England_ of the work of Sir _Charles Whitworth_,\nmuch more explicit with regard to the balance of _Great Britain_, would\nhesitate an instant to break off all commercial connexions with _England_\nand _France_, if only one half should prove real in the prejudices of the\ntwo nations, on the object, which at present seems to determine all the\nothers?\n\nI would, in the next place, propose, for examination, whether those two\nnations are not indebted to these prejudices, for the greatest part of\ntheir mistakes, and of the obstacles which they have found, which they\nstill find, and which they will ever find, in the measures that other\nnations think themselves obliged to adopt, in order to guard against\nthe effects of those prejudices, till their fallacy is universally\nacknowledged, as well as their insufficiency to produce their boasted\neffect, _even in favour of those who would obstinately refuse to give\nthem up_.\n\nEvery year, say the prejudices of both nations, more than seven millions\nsterling are required for their two _terrible_ balances;\u2014but not above\nsix millions are brought over from _America_:\u2014if _Spain_ and _Portugal_\nbe allowed to come in for one sixth (indeed it would be but just), the\nother parts of _Europe_ must settle it amongst themselves to find the two\nmillions sterling, which without that assessment would be deficient in\nthe balances necessary to _France_ and _England_.\u2014Whence does _Europe_\ntake those two millions? Whence have they been taken hitherto? I know\nnot: but it is a stubborn fact: you may consult the work of Mr. _Necker_\nfor the balance of _France_, and for that of _England_ the statements of\nSir _Charles Whitworth_; the former amounts annually to 70 millions of\n_livres_, about 3 millions sterling; and the latter to 83,678,818_l._\nin the space of 20 years, from 1754 to 1773; it is, one year with\nanother, more than 4,180,000_l._ _per annum_. But above all, let it not\nescape your observation, what is said in _France_, that the decline of\nthat Empire will begin, when this balance of 70 millions of _livres_\nshall begin to decline, and that it is the opinion in _England_, that,\nwere the _favourable balance_ to be below 2 or 3 millions sterling, a\nnational bankruptcy must indispensably follow. What is most _miraculous_\n(and indeed consolatory for those who are obliged to think of their\nelevation, before they dream of a bankruptcy, or even of their decline)\nis, that whilst _France_ and _England_ have received annually, the one\n4, the other 3 millions sterling, that is to say, one sixth more than\n_America_ has to share amongst all the _European_ nations, the other\ncountries in _Europe_ have nevertheless increased their mass of money, by\nall that was necessary to keep up their luxury, and the circulation of a\nrevenue which has almost doubled in the course of a century. These are\nprodigies which will cease to be so, even if we admit the facts on which\nthey are founded, if we take the trouble of adding thereto a few other\nfacts rather less questionable; and if it be acknowledged at last, that\nthere are yet others, concerning which the most expert calculator cannot\nflatter himself that he shall even come near the truth, and which give\nto those who will be at the trouble of reflecting, all the latitude they\nmay want, to conclude that the two supposed balances are as inadmissible\nwhen subjected to the discussion of reason alone, as they are afterwards\ndemonstrated to be false, by facts which cannot be controverted.\n\nThe quantity of money required for circulation, depends neither on\nthe speculations of a Minister of finances, nor on the blind cupidity\nof trade, which, luckily, is always counteracted by the clear-sighted\ncupidity of every trader: it depends on the quantity of articles to be\ncirculated, on their price, and on the method adopted for circulation:\u2014it\nis evident that less cash is required in _England_ than in _France_\nto circulate the same mass of revenue, trade, and transactions of all\nkinds; the reasons are obvious: but the sum wanted for the circulation\nbeing once found, every addition thereto is soon, notwithstanding all\nministerial machinations, transferred to some hundred leagues distance,\nif that surplus should be wanted there: now, when this necessary sum\nfor circulation is once ascertained, we shall see how useless it is to\ndespoil, how absurd it is to suppose that they do despoil the rest of\n_Europe_ of her money, in order to keep up that circulation.\n\nWhat is the real amount of the cash circulating in _England_? Some say\n25, others 30 millions sterling. It is probable that 25 millions are\nsufficient, with the help of credit and paper-currency, even in the\nsupposition that _France_ should stand in want of 2 _milliards_ of\n_livres_ in hard cash to give circulation to a revenue, double to that\nof _England_, because there is in _France_ no paper-money, and much less\ncredit than would be obtained, were it not, _too often yet_, so easy to\navoid, by another kind of credit, the payment of the most lawful debts:\nbut we must argue from an incontrovertible fact, and assent, in their\nfullest scope, to the consequences that may be deduced therefrom. The\nfollowing is the fact:\n\nOf all the coin circulating in _England_, 18 months ago there was only\na sixth, and there is now much less than a sixth part, in pieces struck\nbefore the present reign. Now, in 1780, it appears that the money coined\nat the Mint, in the present reign, amounted only to 30,457,805_l._\n\nIt is impossible to suppose, that in the space of 18 years there should\nhave been carried out of the kingdom, either to _Ireland_, or in support\nof the smuggling trade, or for other purposes, less than the amount\nof the coin struck since that period. Let us add to the 30 millions\ncoined from the beginning of this reign down to the year 1780, the\n5 millions for the sixth part in old specie remaining of the former\nreigns (that sixth supposed, rather than acknowledged, to be actually in\ncirculation), the total will be 35 millions; to which must be added, the\nvalue of silver plate, toys, &c. Admit, that all these articles together,\ncirculation and silver wrought, amount to 50 millions sterling;\u2014to those\nwho may think that the sum of 15 millions, at which I rate the wrought\nsilver of all kinds, is too trifling, I would recommend to observe,\nfirst, that these 15 millions constitute nearly the tenth part of the\ngeneral revenue, both of the land and industry; secondly, that the third\npart of that revenue belongs to the peasants and mechanics, who have no\nsuch costly furniture; and thirdly, that as to the rest of the nation, if\nthere exist a man who possesses the equivalent of one half of his revenue\nin plate, there are scores who are not possessed of so much as one tenth\npart.\u2014Shall it be insisted upon, however, that, by adding the amount of\nplate and the mass in circulation to that which _must_ correspond with\nthe demands that may be made upon the Bank, the whole amounts to 60\nmillions sterling?\u2014Be it so;\u2014but _England_ was certainly in possession\nof 20 millions at least, in cash and wrought silver, before the time at\nwhich Sir _Charles Whitworth_ began his Statements; for there existed\nthen much less credit, and no paper to answer the purposes of cash:\u2014forty\nmillions, then, constitute the whole of what _England_ chose (I call it\nstrictly a choice) to reserve, out of so many millions imported from\n_America_, which really went through her hands, in the space of 90\nyears.\u2014I am fully persuaded that I could meet with some thousands of\npersons, even in _England_, who, from the sketch I have given, would\nthink that I make a present to _England_ of 10 millions. It matters not,\nI shall be equally generous in regard to _France_, whose accounts I am\nabout to lay open; and yet I shall have gold and silver enough left to\nextend my liberality all over _Europe_.\n\nMr. _Necker_ has but two reasons to suppose that there exists in the\n_French_ circulation a sum of 2,200,000,000 livres _tournois_. The first\nis the indubitable fact, that since, and including the general re-coining\nof the _French_ specie in 1726 to 1783, there have been struck, in the\ndifferent mints of that kingdom, 2,500,000,000 of the same specie (the\nonly one that is current in that country:) and, in the next place, the\nvery questionable fact, that _France_ has preserved the whole, except 3\nor 400 millions _tournois_, which may have passed into foreign hands,\nfrom the quantity of _French_ specie which must have been carried abroad,\nto answer her commercial and political purposes.\n\nSay only 2000 millions of livres in the _French_ circulation, that I\nmay not be troubled with 100 millions, which can neither weaken nor\nstrengthen my reasonings.\n\nWhen that general re-coinage of the year 1726 took place in _France_,\nthere must have existed, at that time, 1000 millions _tournois_, to\nimpart a proper circulation to a revenue, which, we may suppose, was\nless by one half than what it is at this time. _France_, therefore, had\noccasion to increase her specie, only by the additional thousand of\nmillions, of which she is now in possession, even upon a supposition that\nshe has now 2000 millions; and this want has been supplied in the space\nof 57 years, at the rate of 18 millions only, one year with another.\n\nLet it be granted, now, that the annual wants, the personal wants of\n_France_, in articles of luxury, plate, gold and silver lace, trinkets,\n&c. amounted to 7 millions _tournois_, upon an average, in the course\nof the above 57 years.\u2014By adding thereto the 18 millions I have spoken\nof, I can find but 25 millions overplus, one year with another, saved by\n_France_ upon all the treasures of _America_, which certainly must have\npassed through her hands from 1726 to 1783.\n\nThe reader must be sensible, that there is no occasion to speak of the\nsums annually exported to _India_, it matters not by whom; they no longer\nexist for _Europe_; and I have proved nothing hitherto, if it be still\ndoubted that _Europe_ has lost nothing in that respect but the trifling\nadvance in her prices, which 100 or 150 thousand pounds sterling, added\nannually to her general specie, would have given to all the productions,\nboth of agriculture and industry. The return of those 150,000_l._ in\n_India_ goods has produced yearly to _Europe_ all the labour necessary\nto repay them; for it must be observed, that _labour pays every thing_,\nand that nothing is paid but by _labour_. The 150,000_l._ exported to\n_India_, are not lost therefore, as to their essential effect, as would\nbe the case of sums laid up in the coffers of a Sovereign, who might be\nunacquainted, even at this day, with what was known to Queen _Elizabeth_\nabove 200 years ago, that _the Prince\u2019s treasures are well placed no\nwhere, but in the hands of his subjects_, that is, of _such_ amongst his\nsubjects _who do not lock them up in their own chests_.\n\nI join together the two balances of _France_ and _England_, which\nprobably fall much below, and which cannot be above, what I have stated\nthem to be; and I see that those two formidable bugbears, after having\nannually devoured, according to their own account, 7 millions sterling,\nhave, in the end, and very fortunately too, only digested something less\nthan 2 millions, viz. the bugbear of _France_, 12 or 1300 thousand pounds\nsterling; and the bugbear of _England_, about 5, 6, or 700 thousand.\n\nThank Heaven then, there remains, after _England_ and _France_ have been\nfully saturated, (including the general exportation to _India_) about\n4 millions sterling, which the other States of _Europe_ have received,\none year with another, partly in plate, partly in gold and silver-lace,\npartly in ingots, partly in guineas, and partly in louis-d\u2019ors, of which\nthose who gave them still think themselves in possession, and which those\nwho received them do not think they possess.\n\nBut, it will be said, the louis d\u2019ors, which are spent in _Germany_\nduring a war, revert to _France_ soon after a peace; the plenty in\nwhich they flow back, is known to every one who has the least concern\nin trade.\u2014No doubt of it; when the _German_ circulation is overloaded,\nit must re-flow where it is beneath its level: the coin carried by the\n_French_ into _Germany_, in the time of war, was then indispensable there\nto supply the wants of those who carried the money into that country,\nand to increase the means of the ordinary circulation, _an increase\noccasioned by a circumstance that tertiated the price of every thing_.\nThe circumstance subsiding, every thing takes its usual course; prices\nare reduced; the greatest part of the money which had been carried there,\nbecomes useless on account of that reduction:\u2014it is sent back; and why is\nit taken then by _France_? Because it is become necessary there;\u2014for you\nmust observe, that the money in question was useless in _France_, as soon\nas it was wanted in _Germany_.\u2014During the war the commerce of _France_\nwas at a stand; her granaries overstocked with corn, her cellars with\nwine, her warehouses with goods, waited only for peace, to set a value\non that corn, that wine, those goods, and of course, on that idol Money,\nwhich, during the war, could not, in regard to the _French_, be of any\nvalue, but on the very spot where the _French_ had themselves carried it.\n\nObserve, above all, that _England_, who pretends to have the largest\nbalance in money, is the very nation who, with respect to the\nextensiveness of her commerce and the mass of her industry, keeps the\nleast part of that balance at home, and constantly preserves as little\nof it, as if she had been no less convinced than I am myself, of the\nfutility of any other balance in bullion, but that which is necessary for\nthe five articles above mentioned. What results now from the reduction of\nthose two frightful _colossi_ to their proper dimensions?\n\nIt results, First, that every system of balance, founded on the\nsupposition which served as a basis to the two balances I have spoken\nof, is as chimerical, as it would be pernicious to the nation who should\nregulate herself by it, and to such other nations as might be unfortunate\nenough to correspond with her:\n\nSecondly, That the private interest of every merchant always militates,\nin this respect, against the pernicious dreams of trade in general:\n\nThirdly, That the case between nation and nation trading together, is\nsimilar to that which subsists between citizen and citizen; as there is\nbut one way for a man to prevent the last penny of his wealth from being\nuseful to some other member of his community; and that way is, _to bury\nunder ground (as soon as he has received it) that last penny, the utility\nof which he grudges to share with other men_: in like manner, a nation\ncan no otherwise prevent the surplus of her money being carried into\nanother country when this latter is in want of it, than _by burying her\nbalance as soon as she has received it_:\n\nFourthly, That the superiority of industry, activity, and _capitals_,\nin a nation, gives her no other advantage, than that of supplying those\ncountries with which she trades, with further means of increasing their\nown industry and activity: Now,\n\nFifthly, The more you increase industry and activity amongst other\nnations, the more you increase their want of those signs which are to\nrepresent the products; the more you increase their want of those signs\nwhich you long to possess exclusively, if it were possible: Therefore,\n\nSixthly, If it be true, that money ought to be the only aim of commerce\nand exportation, all the favourite ideas on the pretended balance,\nbeing entirely destroyed by facts, even at the time when the world was\nmore fully persuaded of the truth of those ideas, and of the wisdom of\nthe measures which were to have perpetuated that balance, it would be\nnecessary henceforth to resolve to hide money under ground, as fast as\nit comes in.\u2014Would it not be better to question the principle itself,\nand seek for fresh information on the utility as well as the object of\nexportation?\n\n\n\n\n_Exportations and Importations considered as a Game. Such a Game is as\nrational as any other, to whosoever will not content himself with playing\nat Cards, or with his own ~Thoughts~._\n\n\nA world of unanswerable arguments start up at once, tending to\ndemonstrate the superiority of civilization over the wild state of\nnature. Yet, methinks, a savage may overturn them all by these few\nwords: _I know nothing of what you say, and I am not inquisitive_.\u2014I\nreadily confess at least, that I do not see what reply can be made to\nsuch an answer, more than I did with regard to the four questions put\nin the Upper House to the manufacturer of whom I have spoken; yet this\nmanufacturer was not stronger in argument on all that was foreign to the\nessential point of the four questions, than I might be to convince my\nsavage of that delight, which a man fully persuaded of the excellence of\nhis own conceits, and of the happiness there is in making them known to\nall the world, feels, without allay, without interruption, in staining\nsome reams of paper, scribbling sometimes an hypothesis, sometimes a\ncomedy, a romance, a ballad, &c.; for it is very true, that the work I\nnow lay before the public, has, in the space of 12 or 15 years, undergone\nall those metamorphoses in my hands, and that during that time my heart\nrankled with the ambition of being read in antichambers, given for\npremiums in colleges, tolerated in nunneries, mentioned in the _boudoirs_\nof the fair, noticed in the memory of Ministers, revolved in the hearts\nof Sovereigns, and every day sung about the streets and in cottages,\nthrough which all princes must sometimes pass, if they wish to discover\nsome decisive difference between the interesting illusions of humanity\nand the deep speculations of politics. Yet with all that stock of words,\nif not of reasons, that I must have acquired beforehand, to justify, in\nsome measure, the extravagance of such an ambition, I own that I should\nbe confounded by the answer of my savage.\u2014But this could not be the\ncase, if a civilised man, after having convinced me, that the advantage\nof commerce between man and man, as well as between nation and nation,\nconsists in supplying each other\u2019s wants, when it is possible to effect\nit by an exchange of surplusses, would next undertake to prove to me,\nthat the advantage of a State, which is nothing else but a nation, an\naggregation of men, consists in keeping as much as possible of that\nmoney which they have in too great abundance, though the inevitable\nconsequence would be, that they would procure to themselves so much less\nof some article in which they might be deficient, but which it would at\nthe same time be very convenient to them to possess.\u2014It is hard that the\ncompendium of prohibitions, restrictions, &c. so much commended, and\nwhich have kept so many great men so long on the watch, dwindles finally\ninto the assertion of the two contradictory propositions which I have\njust now dated.\n\nTwo articles are necessary and sufficient to man\u2014bread and water; let not\nmeat be called in as a third; it is too well known, that three fourths\nof _Europe_ seldom eat any, and doubtless no one will contend that\nthree fourths of a whole are less valuable than the fourth remaining,\nin the eyes of Him who created that whole, and who probably takes some\nconcern in its preservation. Exchanges of any other articles besides\nbread and water, are therefore, strictly speaking, _exchanges of mere\nsuperfluities_. Now, what inconvenience can there be in bartering one\nsuperfluity against another?\n\nI shall first of all, display in their full force, the most solid\nreasonings that can possibly be adduced, in order to demonstrate, that\n_the choice and price of all superfluities must be left to the discretion\nof one set of men only_. The chymist is not to blame if he can extract\nnothing but a fetid oil from the matter which he undertakes to decompound.\n\nThat set of men, as estimable, as worthy as any in the world, will\nperhaps wonder when they see the analysis of those ideas, which,\nprobably, they never submitted but to a superficial examination.\n\n\n_Prohibitory Laws against Exportation._\n\n_Query._ Why do you solicit a prohibitory law against the exporting of\nsuch an article of national product?\n\n_Answer._ That I may get it _cheaper_.\n\n_Q._ Can you buy it _cheaper_, without wronging the man who might sell it\n_dearer_?\n\n_A._ No.\n\n_Q._ As it is impossible to prove that such a conduct is equitable, how\nwill you be able to prove it to be advantageous to the State?\n\n_A._ It is advantageous to the State, that all its internal productions\nshould receive at home, all such forms and preparations as may increase\ntheir value.\n\n_Q._ Is the quantity of productions useful to the State?\n\n_A._ The question is almost ridiculous.\n\n_Q._ If the _productor_ be discouraged by the low price set upon his\nproductions, and take proper measures to produce _less_, in order to save\nthe expence attending a _greater_ production, and in the mean time to\ngain by producing _less_ as much as he could gain by producing _more_,\nwill you not then be guilty of having wronged the State of all the\nproductions which you crush in the very bud, by the prohibition you sue\nfor?\n\n_A._ No; Smuggling will give to the parties injured by the prohibitory\nlaw, a fully sufficient means of extricating themselves.\n\n_Q._ Your hopes then are, that Smuggling will make up for the injuries\nyou propose to do to the _productors_; but how will you compensate to\nthe State for the loss it sustains by a clandestine exportation?\n\n_A._ Our only business is to mind our own interest; besides, the State\nmay easily procure, by means of a land-tax, what it may lose by the\nclandestine exportation: and we are so far from expecting that Smuggling\nshould turn out to our advantage, that we petition it may be made a\ncapital offence, and prohibited under pain of mutilation, the galleys, or\nat least the entire ruin of the smuggler.\n\n_Q._ But the law will either succeed, or fail in its effect. If the\nlaw succeed, will you not be the author of that diminution of the\nproducts, which the low price you intend to set upon those products\nmust unavoidably occasion? And if the law fail in its effect, do you\nnot uselessly deprive the State, 1st, of the produce of the smuggler\u2019s\nlabour, whom you hope to see hanged, or at best, mutilated; and, 2dly,\nof the produce of that labour which would have been performed by that\narmy, partly composed of rogues, partly of idle fellows, now to be\nset upon the watch to detect and apprehend the smuggler, keep him in\nclose confinement, and lead him finally to the _gallows_, or to the\n_galleys_?\u2014Who is to pay those rogues and idle fellows?\n\n_A._ The State, to be sure.\n\n_Q._ What are the essential parts of the State?\n\n_A._ Industry that goes in search of money, and Agriculture in as much as\nshe feeds Industry _at the cheapest rate_.\n\nAgriculture, impoverished by your prohibitory law, will then lose, not\nonly what she should get by being at liberty to export, but also what\nshe must find to assist you in procuring her impoverishment, by paying\nthe land-tax necessary to pay those very rogues and idle fellows, whose\nbusiness it is to destroy her only remaining resource against your\ncupidity\u2014SMUGGLING.\n\n\n_Prohibitory Laws against, or excessive Duties imposed upon Importation._\n\n_Q._ Why do you petition against the liberty of importing such or such\nanother article?\n\n_A._ Because we manufacture it, and wish to sell it dearer to the\nnational consumers.\n\n_Q._ Of how many orders of men is the class of national consumers\ncomposed?\n\n_A._ Of two, the land proprietor, and all persons not wholly destitute of\nmoney.\n\n_Q._ That is to say, _in all cases_, of the whole kingdom, against the\nsmall number of individuals who humbly petition for the prohibition of an\narticle;\u2014be it so. Have you devised any means to increase in the consumer\nthe ability of purchasing, whilst you advance the price of your goods?\n\n_A._ Not we;\u2014on the contrary, it is our intention to have as much as we\ncan of his commodities and money, for as little of our goods as possible.\n\n_Q._ How can men of probity and knowledge be blind to the iniquity of\nsuch a scheme?\u2014Will not at least its execution be somewhat impeded by the\ngreatest part of those who follow the same trade?\n\n_A._ No\u2014that is impossible: our _corporations_ have already provided\nagainst the inconvenience you allude to: not one of their members would\ndare to sell his merchandise below the price fixed by his _corporation_:\nand we have made, as it were, the _impossibility_ of any such measure,\n_doubly_ so, by the difficulties we have devised to prevent a ready\nadmittance into our _corporations_; all our bye-laws tend to reduce our\nassociates to the smallest number possible. But one single expedient\nis now wanted to put the finishing hand to that grand work; it is the\nabsolute prohibition of importing all those commodities which foreign\nnations might offer at a cheaper rate, than we are determined to sell\nthem at.\n\n_Q._ So then, if you succeed in your plan\u2014if by means of the solicited\nprohibition, the legislature enable you to extort, with your 16 in\nmerchandise, the goods and money, which, in the case of a foreign\ncompetition, you could not have procured with less than 20, what do you\nintend to do with the remaining part of what you shall have extorted?\n\n_A._ We shall send it abroad.\n\n_Q._ With what view?\n\n_A._ Of increasing the balance in money.\n\n_Q._ Have you hitherto acted confidently with that idea?\n\n_A._ We have\u2014and it is known to all the world that it is the dearest idea\nof an _Englishman_\u2014an idea which the nation holds (if properly attended\nto) as the only bulwark against a national bankruptcy.\n\n_Q._ What have you got by that idea, if it be probable that there is not\nabove 25 or 30 millions in specie within the kingdom, and if it be proved\nevidently that it is impossible you should have more than 35?\n\n_A._ The reason is, no doubt, that foreign importation has been too\nfreely permitted; a criminal, a traiterous indulgence which we are\nincessantly at work to remove: and it is on that account, that besides\nthe absolute prohibition we now pray for in regard to such and such\narticles, we also petition that the duties be laid double and treble on\nall other foreign articles which are not yet totally prohibited.\n\n_Q._ Do you not fear that foreigners, whose merchandise you would cause\nto be prohibited, should play the same trick with yours? Do you not fear\nthat those on whose goods you mean to increase the duties, should in\ntheir turn overload those which they will receive from you?\u2014For this is\nall the conjuration requisite to counteract and balance the effect of\nthose sublime regulations which you petition for.\n\n_A._ We shall carry on a smuggling trade in their country, and they will\npay dearer for our goods; they cannot do without them.\n\n_Q._ They will, no doubt, follow your example: therefore new recruits\nwill be wanted for that army of rogues and idlers, designed to lay hold\nof, and ruin whoever should dare to oppose your ransoming the owners of\nlands, and proprietors of some money; but be it so:\u2014you will besides be\nequally successful in obliging the poor ransomed individuals, to pay\nfor the additional and necessary reinforcement of your standing army of\nrogues and idlers, and for those light troops of informers so well fitted\nfor the noble purpose you are carrying on;\u2014be it so again.\u2014But, after\nall, what are you to do with that immense balance in money?\u2014Shall you\nbury it under ground?\n\n_A._ Aye\u2014and with all our hearts and souls, if, when thus buried, it\ncould bring to us the same benefit as when it is rendered useful to\nsome one else; but alas! that secret is not yet found out: it might be\npossible, however, to pray for an Act of Parliament, compelling the\nnation to pay the interest of all the sums thus interred by us; and the\nwisdom of such an Act would be the more conspicuous, as it would keep\nwithin the reach, under the very hand of the nation, all the money\nshe might have occasion for, whenever she should think it expedient\nto declare war against _France, our natural enemy_. Till such an Act\nis framed, we shall follow the example of _Holland_; we shall keep on\nthe carrying trade, by which the _Dutch_ have gained so much money\nnotwithstanding our Navigation Act, which we fondly hoped was calculated\nto effect their ruin: we shall carry from _Russia_ to _Sicily_, from\n_Constantinople_ to _Poland_, from _Stockholm_ to _Cadiz_, from _Lisbon_\nto _Venice_, whatever may be carried from one place to the other, and\nthis we shall do at the lowest prices, in order to get the preference\nof the _Dutch_. It is a great pity that this cannot be effected without\nbenefiting the land-owners, and the proprietors of some money, in all the\ncountries where we may stand in competition for that carrying trade, not\nonly with the _Dutch_, but with all the national monopolists who shall\nnot have as yet been dexterous enough to force from their legislature,\nlaws as _favourable to commerce_ as those we have obtained; but in fact,\nwhat matters it to us whom we serve, provided we get a good profit from\nthe service?\n\n_Q._ Will you add further: _And provided also that the service done,\nfalls not on the land-owner, or on the proprietor of some money within\nyour nation_?\u2014Yet thus far would you finally be led by that system of\nprohibitions and restrictions, almost equally extravagant, to which you\nare so devoutly attached.\u2014But such a plan can succeed only to a certain\ndegree: be pleased to observe, that hitherto you can boast of no other\nadvantage but that of the first attack.\u2014Sole and absolute arbiters as you\nare of your own prices by the monopoly you have obtained, if agriculture\nhad not advanced those of her products in the same proportion, would\nnot your land-owners be compelled to seek abroad for a country where\nmonopoly should not be so obligingly countenanced? For you do not,\nI presume, flatter yourselves that you shall be able to induce your\nParliament, in the age we live in, doubly to tax the property of those\nwho might look abroad for a remedy against your extortions:\u2014the many laws\nof that kind consigned to your annals, (and which you would not fail to\nquote as a precedent,) must seek in the ignorance and barbarity of the\nage that gave them birth, an apology for their establishment; but at\nthis present time!\u2014Such shades in the picture of the Land of Liberty,\ninstead of setting off the beauties of its other parts, would annihilate\nthe very idea of that liberty. _It is by justice and freedom that we\nare attracted and retained; it is by injustice and restraint that we\nare expelled, and kept at a distance._ Be pleased then, in fine, to\nobserve that nothing can result from those plans, the iniquity of which\nyou have no more searched into than you have thoroughly examined their\nconsequences,\u2014from those prohibitions and restrictions, the effects of\nwhich must be counterbalanced by contradictory regulations,\u2014except the\npitiful advantage of having perverted the nature of the prices on every\narticle. _What is necessary to counteract the effect of an injury done to\nthe generality, will always mechanically be brought about by that very\ngenerality._ Would it not be more advantageous for men, to agree amongst\nthemselves, like intelligent beings, on some plans accounted equitable by\nall,\u2014on plans the analysis of which the projector might bear without a\nblush?\u2014Were a few points agreed upon, it would not perhaps be difficult\nto settle all the others.\n\nLet the dead bodies be wrapped up in woollen instead of linen cloth;\nlinen coming from abroad, wool being a staple commodity, and the dead\ncaring little whether their winding-sheet be made of woollen or linen:\nit is a point of economy which it would be rather too severe to condemn,\nalthough it is probable enough that in the North they would exchange\nwith pleasure, for your _buried woollen_, linen cloth in sufficient\nquantity to wrap up your dead; a circumstance which might prove very\nbeneficial to some of the living, both in _England_ and _Silesia_. But\nwill you attempt to persuade, that it is advantageous to the State,\nunder any aspect, to compel a man who calls himself free, to wear\nmanufactured buttons, when his inclination would lead him to have them\nmade of remnants of stuff? Will you attempt to persuade, that it is\nadvantageous to the State, to make him pay a penalty of 3 or 4 pounds,\nbesides cost, if he is surprised _flagrante delicto_? Will you attempt to\npersuade, that it is advantageous to the State, to encourage the infamous\ntrade of informing, by a reward in favour of an informer, against a\nman guilty of _such a crime_? Will you attempt to persuade, that it is\nadvantageous to the State, to withdraw from their useful occupations a\nswarm of fellows, _become capable of any dirty work_, by having turned\ninformers on account of the stipulated recompense, and who, waiting for\nan opportunity of doing worse, leave their work-shops as soon as such\na law is passed, in search of a prey the seisure of which will enable\nthem to live in riot and intoxication for a whole week together, without\nbeing obliged to return to their work? This is not all; for, in fine, if\nall the branches of industry have the same right to the protection of\nGovernment, does not a law, the immediate effect of which is to enhance\nthe price of buttons by occasioning a greater demand for that article,\ndestroy all idea of that protection equally due to the other branches of\nindustry, by infallibly depriving some of them, both of the amount of the\ncash they might have received from those who will now be forced, against\ntheir inclination, to purchase manufactured buttons, and of the amount\nof cash which the advanced price of manufactured buttons, will unjustly\nwrest from those who, by the effect of the law, are obliged to pay dearer\nfor what they might have procured at a cheaper rate? Would not the\nleast facility granted for the importation of some foreign merchandise,\nhave occasioned abroad a greater consumption, either of buttons, or\nof some other _English_ goods, than such a law can procure at home in\nthe manufactory unjustly favoured? But, above all, will you attempt to\npersuade, that it is advantageous for the State, to acquire a thousand\nmore button-makers, when that acquisition is obtained by the loss of a\nthousand artificers employed in manufacturing some other articles, the\nconsumption of which would have been _free_, that is, analogous to the\nsituation of those who boast of their being so?\n\nLet us seek for such points, as it may be possible to agree upon.\n\nThe State is composed of three orders of men, all equally precious, and\nwhose rights are equally sacred; _viz._ the landed _capitalist_, the\n_capitalist_ of industry, and the proprietor of money, whether he be\nconsidered as a _capitalist_ in this last respect, or only as a dependent\non either of the two former _capitalists_. Each of these three orders has\nits interest.\n\nFirst, It is the highest interest of the landed _capitalist_, that there\nbe the greatest plenty and variety of the best products of industry, and\nthe greatest consumption of the productions of the earth.\n\nSecondly, It is the highest interest of the _capitalist_ of industry,\nthat there be the greatest plenty and variety of the best productions of\nthe earth, and the greatest consumption of the products of industry.\n\nThirdly, It is the highest interest of the money proprietor, that there\nbe the largest quantity and variety of the best products both of industry\nand agriculture, in order that he may be able to support the value\nof his capital by the quantity of objects on which he will have it in\nhis power to lay it out, and the value of his interest by the greatest\npossible consumption, not at the lowest price, which, supposed lasting,\nis as chimerical as the pretended balance, _constantly favourable_, but\nat the most equitable rate, that is to say, the highest the seller can\nhope for, and the lowest to which the purchaser can pretend.\n\nBut if it be true, that the combined interest of the three orders be\ncentered within the three points I have stated, namely, the greatest\npossible quantity and variety of the best productions of the earth,\nthe greatest quantity and variety of the best products of industry,\nand the greatest as well as most unconfined consumption of both at an\nequitable price; it is equally true, that it must be a matter of perfect\nindifference to agriculture, in what part of the world, and by whom her\nproductions are consumed, provided they be paid to her in any products\nwhatever, at her option equivalent to those she has parted with. It is no\nless true, that it is a matter of perfect indifference to industry, in\nwhat part of the world, and by whom, her products are consumed, provided\nshe be paid for them in any products whatever, at her option, equivalent\nto those she gives. It is equally true, that the money-proprietor must\nview, with the same indifference, his property giving life to this or\nthat branch of industry or agriculture, provided, that in the hour\nof need or fancy, he finds at hand, on the most equitable terms, the\ngreatest quantity and variety of the best products of agriculture and\nindustry, which the interest of his money, or the amount of the salaries\nhe enjoys, gives him A RIGHT to expect.\n\nThere remains, it is true, a fourth interest, that of the _Fisc_, or\npublic revenue; but if this revenue be nothing more than the produce of\nthe taxes, this fourth interest consists of course, as the three former,\nin the largest quantity of products, and the greatest consumption. Now\nare there any other means to obtain those two objects, besides the freest\nand most extensive exchange, not of goods for money, but of goods for\ngoods? Is it not perceivable, that all the four interests united, as well\nas each of them separately, require that no more be imported in bullion\nor money than the quantity necessary to facilitate those exchanges?\nIs not a surplus of money not only useless, but even detrimental, in\ndiminishing our enjoyments, our possible profits, and _that consumption\nwhich produces the public revenue_?\n\nThe Navigation Act was, if you will have it so, the last effort of the\nhuman mind, at a time when every notion relative to commerce, was nearly\nconfined to _England_ alone; but I question much whether the _Opposition_\nthe most warm in invoking that tutelary God, against the Minister who\ndares to offer the least encroachment upon its worship, would not be\nvery much pleased to see it destroyed before they themselves should come\ninto office: it is an old idol, to which incense is offered through mere\npolicy, and for which a veneration is kept up in the minds of the people,\nfor the sole purpose of making it subservient to the downfall of the\nman who might be courageous enough to attempt its destruction. I shall\npass over in silence the obstacles which that famous Act daily opposes\nto regulations as well adapted to the present state of things, as those\nit contains were to the circumstances that gave it birth; but, to the\nintoxication produced by its success, I shall be bold enough to impute\none of the most mistaken notions on the true aim of national commerce:\nit is a very fatal error, to imagine that money ought to be the _object_\nof those operations of which it is only the _means_. This chimera, it\nis true, has never been realised; the wisdom of private cupidities has\nalways triumphed over the folly of general cupidity: nothing more clear\nthan the exactness with which the treasures of _America_ have been\nshared amongst all the nations of _Europe_, each in proportion to her\nagriculture and her industry, that is, according to her wants: at least\nit appears to me, that the two balances of _England_ and _France_, which\nI have produced, are incontrovertible proofs of what I here advance,\nthough they have been imagined and received as proofs of the very\ncontrary; nevertheless, the prejudice concerning these two _formidable\nbalances_ still subsists, and it is this prejudice which daily gives\nlife to new prohibitions, and new restrictions: there is not perhaps in\nall _Europe_, a single modern regulation of that kind which does not owe\nits establishment to this prejudice, and to the power it derives from\nthe veneration paid to it in the place where it was first conceived. The\nnation who takes the lead in point of commercial knowledge, is every\nwhere carefully watched. On the least of her operations, other nations\nmake use of the light she has held forth; her principles are studied,\nher maxims adopted, her examples followed; every where they are on their\nguard against her pretensions, pretensions openly avowed, prosecuted\nwithout mystery, and crowned, as it is supposed, with success; and when\nthey see, that within the course of a twelvemonth, she has really\nreceived more gold and silver than she was wont to receive in three\nyears; when they see the intoxication of her inhabitants on the arrival\nof those treasures which obey her call from all parts of _Europe_;\nwhen they hear the complaints of her news-paper writers against the\nuntractableness of the _Americans_, in not suffering themselves to be\nentirely stripped of their specie; when they attend to her invectives\non the combinations of the _American_ merchants to prevent those of\n_England_ from taking away that trifling sum in specie which the _United\nStates_ want, to give more consistency to their paper-money;\u2014_then_,\nindeed, _then_ it is possible to forget every thing else; it is possible\nnot to remark, that, with the same excess of avowed cupidity, _England_,\nnevertheless, has not received, in the course of a whole century, (_a\nperiod sufficient to determine an experiment_) _England_, I say, during\na whole century, has disdained to receive her dividend of the treasures\nimported into _Europe_; the paper-money circulating in _England_ stands\nevidently in lieu of a great part of the sum it represents, _and which\nit was at her own option to procure_. It is also very pardonable not to\nreflect _then_, that it is impossible for _England_ to keep long in her\nhands without hurting herself, more than any other nation, any money\nabove what is necessary for her. No one takes the trouble of arguing long\non causes, when the effect is instantaneously and powerfully felt: _Not\n~Europe~ alone, but the ~United States~ of ~America~, are stript of their\nmoney by ~England~; ~England~ therefore wants not any longer to import\nforeign goods, or when she advances the price of her own merchandise, she\nrefuses paying dearer for that of other nations._ The other nations do\nnot hesitate\u2014_English_ goods are instantly prohibited.\n\nThe following principles are such as, I think, can never mislead.\n\nThere is not a single nation that cannot boast some palpable advantage\nover another; nay, there is not a nation, a single province, that has\nnot received some peculiar favour from nature, which the same soil to\nall appearance, the same temperature, the same exposure, refuse to yield\nany where else but _with double the labour, and double the expence_,\nand which, even with such additional aids, they yield at last only in a\nstate of degradation. Now, that portion of such peculiar favours, which\nthe proprietor of the land does not chuse to consume, belongs only to\nthe greatest quantity of other favours that it is possible to procure\nin exchange. The more the proprietor procures of such other favours in\nexchange, the more is he encouraged to increase the quantity of articles\nwhich have enabled him to procure those favours; on the contrary, the\nmore he is restrained with regard to those exchanges which he might\nprocure, the more he is circumscribed, even in his means of production.\nEvery restriction therefore tending to diminish either the production\nor the price of any article whatever, is a theft committed upon the\nproprietor of the land, upon the province blessed with that favour which\nis peculiar to it, upon the nation whose general revenue is decreased by\nthe whole amount of the productions stifled in the very bud, upon the\nexchequer of that nation which would receive a duty on those productions;\nand finally upon every one capable of presenting the nation with another\nexchangeable commodity, or waiting only to see those productions, in\norder to create an equivalent to pay for them.\u2014Does it signify in what\npart of the world? Must it not, at last, reach the original proprietor,\nif he be not paid?\n\nWhat is said of the productions of agriculture, may be applied to those\nof industry. It is a gross mistake to imagine, that all things can be\nequally well manufactured every where: how many fabrics, the perfection\nof which depends on the quality of the water, and other local causes for\nwhich it is impossible to account! How many more derive their perfection\nfrom the bent of national genius, from the general dispositions, the\nnatural qualities of the inhabitants! Can we expect from the vivacity\nof the _Frenchman_, who desires only to consume, what we may expect\nfrom the patience of the _Englishman_, who labours only to enjoy? This\nlatter will always, and in spite of himself, give to his work a solidity\nwhich will increase its price as well as its value; the other, in spite\nof himself, will be busy about the forms best calculated to procure a\nquick sale: objects of real comfort will always belong to the former, the\nlatter will ever lead the fashions. To hope that the one will produce,\nwithout difficulty, what costs little or nothing to the other, would be\nattempting to give to the wines of hot countries the pleasing acidity\nproper to the wines of _Germany_; to these, the restorative and balsamic\nqualities of the _Spanish_ and _Italian_ wines in the places where they\nunderstand how to make them; to the wines of _Italy_ and _Germany_, that\nnative generosity proper to the wine of _Bordeaux_; to all of them,\nthe flavour of _Burgundy_ and the sprightliness of _Champaign_. It is\npossible, say they, to imitate every thing;\u2014say rather, to adulterate, to\ncorrupt, nay even to poison every thing, if Art can find no other way to\ncounterfeit Nature: _and these are the blessed effects of restrictions\nand prohibitions_. It is a strange idea, to think of doing without\nothers; as if that did not lead them to think of doing without us; as if\nthe savage, of whom I have spoken, had not the same reason to prefer his\nstate to that of civilisation.\n\nNor would it be less strange to persist in setting the interest of the\npeople in opposition to that of the Exchequer, if it were possible to\nreconcile them together, _instead of rendering, almost on every object at\npresent, the infamous trade of informers more lucrative than labour_.\n\nSmuggling is hurtful to the State; it deprives government of the duties\non the articles smuggled into or out of the kingdom; but is it so very\nadvantageous to succeed in the measures adopted to prevent it, if by\nbartering a great number of honest smugglers against a great number of\ninformers and a great number of custom-house imps, you make so many\nthieves of the first, so many much more contemptible wretches of the\nsecond, a rabble almost equally vile as the third; and succeed, at the\nsame time, in debasing in the hands of several manufacturers and landed\nproprietors, the value of all those articles, which were before taken\nfrom them by the smugglers to their mutual benefit?\n\n_England_, it is true, suffered no damage, when a prodigious quantity\nof _English_ goods, which are not comprehended in the _modest_ balance\nwith _France_, as stated by Sir _Charles Whitworth_, because they were\nintroduced into _France_ by smugglers, were sold nevertheless, without\nmuch ado, all over that kingdom, and particularly in _Paris_, publicly\nadvertised on the shop-boards, in large gold letters;\u2014but had not\n_France_ some reason to think herself ill used, when an equal quantity of\n_French_ goods, introduced also by smugglers into _England_, without any\ninformation given to Sir _Charles_, ceased to pay the value of the goods\nsmuggled from _England_, and sold publicly all over _France_, and when,\ninstead of a small balance, sometimes given, sometimes received, _France_\nfound herself obliged to remit to _London_ an enormous sum in hard cash,\nfor payments which she had hitherto discharged in merchandise?\n\nIt is a pitiful policy on the part of _France_, (as remarked very justly\nin all the _English_ papers after the first of _August_, 1785) to deprive\nherself of a thousand _English_ luxuries which she is so fond of, and\nwhich she is so able to procure;\u2014but is _English_ policy much better, in\nrejecting thousands of _French_ luxuries, which she finds so pleasing,\nand which she is so able to pay for?\n\nSmuggling is but a very poor corrective, a partial corrective, of the\niniquity ever attendant on Monopoly;\u2014a feeble compensation for the\nrestrictions and prohibitions obtained in its favour: Smuggling, duly\nconsidered in this light, is but too just; and it is shocking to be\nobliged to punish so barbarously the unhappy men who gain a living by it.\nBut will not this necessity be removed, together with smuggling itself,\nat the very moment that to those absurd regulations which encourage\nthat practice, shall be substituted a system of bartering, equally\nadvantageous to the nations which now find a benefit in smuggling?\u2014a\nsystem, which would mutually furnish to all parties interested, all\nthe means of introducing and procuring, in the best condition, at the\ncheapest rate, with the least risk, and with the greatest advantage to\nthe Treasury, every article which before was introduced and procured at\na greater risk, almost always dearer, of the worst quality, and to the\ndetriment of the public revenue.\n\nLet me ask whether that mass of prohibitions and restrictions, which\n_legally_ establishes monopoly in _England_, be any thing more than a\nmass of privileges granted to a chosen few, to the prejudice of the whole\ncommunity? Were we to look at every particular regulation, and consider\nit distinctly, is there one which would not find the whole nation against\nit, _except the humble Petitioners who share in the benefit_? And must it\nnot be very strange to imagine, very absurd to say, and above human power\nto effect, that a system of regulations, not one of which favours above\none man against thousands, should, upon the whole, be serviceable to the\nState?\n\nIndependent of the advantages which would arise from a truly free and\njudicious system of commerce, viz. 1st, That of procuring what we\nhave not, by means of some article which we have in abundance, and\nwhich our neighbours want;\u20142dly, The bartering of the superfluity of\nour best articles in one kind, for the superfluity of what is best in\na different kind;\u20143dly, Not to barter what we can make cheaper than\nothers, except for goods which would cost us more were we to manufacture\nthem;\u2014independent, I say, of these three, advantages, where would be\nthe inconvenience, though our bartering should be confined merely to the\ninnocent folly of exchanging one toy for another, or one rag for another?\nThe great, the true, the only advantage, of an exchange of property,\nwould not even in this case be lost to mankind; the man who is employed\nonly in marking the game, while two persons are amusing themselves,\nwhole days, in tossing a ball from one to the other in a tennis-court,\nis nevertheless supported at the expence of the players. And are not the\nowner of the court, his wife and children, maintained likewise at their\ncost? If, having considered the Exchequer metaphorically, under the type\nof the Keeper of the Tennis Court, we afterwards, without a metaphor,\nconsider this Keeper as a poor man who chooses this way of subsistence,\ndo not the players pay this tax (which they impose on themselves) in\nfavour of the poor, with more pleasure, though the tax may be greater,\nthan a certain other tax, which perhaps becomes necessary, only from\nthe difficulties with which we embarrass both the game of passing from\none parish to another, and the game of imports and exports, which is as\ninnocent, and more lucrative than that of tennis?\n\n\n\n\n_The nominal Value of the generality of Exports, considered in different\nPeriods, and with respect to its Effect on foreign Correspondence._\n\n\nWhen a manufacturer is compelled, by the general augmentation of prices,\narising from taxation, to pay his workmen and materials ten _per cent._\nI suppose, dearer than usual, and he exports 1000 hats, _upon each of\nwhich_ a draw-back of 6 shillings, I will suppose, is allowed him on\nexportation, he does not reflect on the difference of 10 _per cent._\ndiffused through the general run of prices, by the mechanical reaction of\nthe total of the taxes on all that is not taxed; he remembers well the\neffect of this reaction in the account which he makes out for himself,\nto know at what rate he must in future sell his hats in foreign markets;\nhe only considers the draw-back, the remittance of the 6 shillings duty,\nand concludes that it puts him in a situation to deal with foreigners\non the same terms as he did previous to the taxes, which have increased\nevery thing to the amount of 10 _per cent_. Nevertheless, the thousand\nhats, with which, previous to the taxes, he furnished his foreign friends\nfor 1000_l._ I will suppose, are now raised to 1200_l._\u2014Point out this\ncircumstance to him, he will tell you he cannot sell his hats cheaper,\nand that foreigners must pay 1200_l._ instead of 1000_l._ since the\nforeigner wants them. \u201cBesides, (says he) what is the sum of two hundred\npounds more, divided among a thousand persons, who will purchase the\nhats from the merchant abroad, to whom he sells them?\u201d The manufacturer\ndoes not want to look further; and the writer who from the nature of his\nsubject, or his manner of considering it, wants only to reflect a little\nmore, will only add, _Thus it is that foreigners pay our taxes, and never\nsuspect that they do so_. This is the truth, but not the whole truth. I\nshall endeavour to find it out.\n\nThe general trade of _England_ with the rest of _Europe_ is not confined\nto some thousands of pounds sterling, to be settled once for all; it\nis an immense sum, _which must_ be renewed every year. Let us begin by\nbeing thoroughly convinced of this necessity, in order to submit to its\nconsequences: we shall find moreover that these consequences are not\ndestructive.\n\nThe annual exports of _England_ amount to about a fifth of the products\nof her industry, and consequently represent about a fifth of the labour\nof her artificers.\n\nIf the taxes, after the war of 1755, had raised the price of every thing\nat the rate of 10 _per cent._ (I can err but by a little more or less)\nthe total of her exports, which, before that war, amounted, on a medium\nof ten years, (see Sir _Charles Whitworth_) only to a sum of 12,776,614\npounds sterling, let us say 13 millions, amounted, after the peace, to 14\nmillions 300 thousand.\n\nLet us now suppose the trade of _England_ exhibiting to its foreign\ncorrespondents, in the year 1762, this total in exports of 13 millions\n(at the old prices) under the name of 14 millions 300 thousand pounds,\n(a price rendered unavoidable by the advance in the prices of all\ncommodities, on account of the taxes); and let us suppose these\ncorrespondents to have, really and annually, no more to pay them than\n13 millions of their own manufactures, indicated by this modest number,\nbecause they had not the honour to support, during seven years, a war\nthe most brilliant and successful in the memory of man, in _Germany_,\n_America_, and _India_. I think one of the three following consequences\nmust be the result:\n\n_Either_\n\nThat the total of _English_ exports must have been reduced from 14\nmillions 300 thousand pounds to 13 millions, for want of means in our\nforeign buyers to pay the whole amount of _English_ exports at their\nadvanced price:\n\n_Or_,\n\nThat _England_ must have been complaisant enough to call 13 millions, in\na foreign market, the amount of her exports, which the effects of her new\ntaxes obliged her to call 14 millions 300 thousand pounds at home:\n\n_Or_,\n\nThat _England_ must have allowed her foreign connexions to call 14\nmillions 300 thousand pounds the same quantity and quality of their\nmanufactures, which, before the effect of _English_ taxation, they called\nonly 13 millions, and which, _till then_, had made the balance of what\nthey imported from _England_.\n\nIn the first case, the _English_ manufactories, which furnish the\nexports, would have been necessarily reduced one tenth; upon which it\nis necessary to observe, that the tenth of the _English_ exportation\nmakes a fiftieth of the total value of the product of her industry, and\nthat the inutility of the fiftieth of those products, occasioned by\nthe impossibility of their being purchased by foreigners at the price\noccasioned by the _English_ new taxes, must have deprived of subsistence,\nas well as of employment, a fiftieth of the _English_ artisans, and\nrendered useless a fiftieth of the capitals appropriated to exportation.\n\nIn the second case, the prices of commodities would not be perceptibly\nincreased any where else but in _England_; the prices of her\ncorrespondents would have been, ten years after the peace, almost as they\nwere in 1754.\n\nIn the third case, the prices would have increased, among the foreign\ncorrespondents of the _English_, nearly in the same proportion as in\n_England_.\n\nThe first case is evidently false, since Sir _Charles Whitworth_\u2019s\n_Statements_ prove that the exports of _England_, which amounted, as we\nhave before observed, upon a medium of 10 years before the war, only to\n12 millions 776,614 pounds sterling, amounted, upon a medium of 10 years\nafter the peace, to 14 millions 921,067 pounds sterling, and even to 15\nmillions 11,211 pounds sterling, if we take a medium of 12 years from the\npeace to 1773, at which period Sir _Charles Whitworth_\u2019s _Statements_\nconclude; (which exhibits, _independently of the nominal augmentation\nsupposed to have been occasioned by the taxes_, a _real_ augmentation of\nabout a 17th, notwithstanding _the real vacuum owing to the loss of those\nmen who would have increased this exportation, if they had not perished\nin ~Germany~, ~India~, ~America~, and at sea_.)\n\nThe second case is more universally acknowledged to be false, since\nthere is not a single country in _Europe_ where the price of every thing\nhas not, upon a medium, increased at least 10 _per cent._ from 1754 to\n1770;\u2014which proves the truth of the third case:\u2014thus it happens that\nforeigners have paid the old taxes of _England_, without suspecting it;\nas _England_ does not, in the least, suspect that those taxes are no\nlonger paid either in _England_ or elsewhere, although their produce\nreturns nevertheless to the public creditor.\n\nLet us consider, however, whether this general increase of prices could\nfinally prove prejudicial to _England_, or to her connexions abroad.\n\nIt could not prove so to _England_, because she was obliged to submit\nto this increase, or else to give up the manufacturing of a tenth of\nthe commodities she exported to foreign countries (_where she exports\nnothing of what she can sell at home_), and because a deficiency of a\n10th of her exports would have inevitably deprived a 50th of her artisans\nof sustenance, and rendered useless a 50th of the capitals devoted to\nexportation. Besides, considering this object in another light, what\nloss would _England_ sustain by receiving, under the denomination of\n14, I suppose, the same commodities which before were furnished for 13,\nwhile she gave for the purchase, only 13 (old prices) which the effect of\ntaxation made her call 14?\n\nIt could not prejudice her foreign connexions, because this increase\nof prices, which _abroad was not owing to taxation_, was only an\nencouragement to labour, which must in general have increased its\nproducts, always entitled to a profit over and above the price paid for\nthat labour.\n\nA circumstance which was necessary for _England_, without doing her the\nleast harm, has, then, proved useful to the rest of _Europe_.\u2e3a\n\nBut let up remark two very essential points:\n\nThe first is, that it is impossible in the nature of things, to keep\nup foreign consumption, _upon which depends the continuation of our\nexports_, without giving foreigners leave to increase the price of\ntheirs, by so much as the commodities carried to them must be increased\nby our taxes;\u2014in the same manner as it is impossible in the nature of\nthings, to keep up interior consumption, national consumption, _upon\nwhich depends the payment of taxes_, without a general interior increase\nin the price of labour, as well as in the price of its products, when the\nwants of the State require new contributions.\n\nThe second observation which I deem equally essential, is, that such\na work, (_a work of an utility which may be called universal_) has\nbeen brought about, consummated, without the Ministers of any State\nwhatsoever being entitled to any glory from the event, except that of\nhaving facilitated the operation, if they have favoured the general\nliberty of communication in all articles of trade; and without their\nhaving deserved any other blame but that of retarding it, if their zeal,\ntheir greediness for the _favourable balance_, has suggested to them\nany _device_ to attract and overthrow it in the only country entrusted\nto their management. We must universally ruin Credit, Trade, Commerce,\nand the Banking business, if we pretend to prevent Wealth from extending\nitself universally, a little sooner or later. _The owner of any kind of\nriches whatever, has it not in his power to do any thing else, but to\nchoose the place, the object, and the time, of giving the first motion_;\nall the rest is merely the effect of a stone cast into the water:\nobserve how the undulations succeed one another, how they are renewed\nand extended;\u2014can you fix the point where they shall stop?\u2014We pretend\nto direct them!\u2014_Scilicet is super\u00fbm labor est?_ ... _Ist\u00e6ne animia\nc\u0153lestibus cur\u00e6?_\u2014Indeed, indeed, too many cares occupy the minds of our\nGods!\n\nI return to the grand points.\n\nMethinks upon viewing the picture I have drawn, it is easy now to\nconceive, why, as I have observed in page 62, _a person, however strongly\nconvinced of the cruel effect which ought naturally to arise from a\ndebt of 64 millions sterling, contracted from 1754 to 1762, could not\nnevertheless cite in ~England~, from 1763 to 1775, a single indication\nof a decay in agriculture or commerce, nor any falling-off in the\nenjoyment of luxury, public or private, nor less insolence in the bulk\nof the people_. The reason is this: the two capitalists, who failed not\nto increase the price of every thing they were concerned in, according\nto the exigency of the taxes, determined also (_after a few little\nformalities, always necessary with regard to the people, when nothing but\nluxury has been taxed_) to augment the price of labour in proportion to\nthat of its products; foreigners, on the other hand, raised the price of\ntheir goods in proportion as taxes had increased the goods of _England_\nexported to them; and the old equilibrium was restored every where, as\nsoon as the general increase of prices had made the general power of\nconsumption, equal to the need the State was in of an exterior as well as\nan interior, _i. e._ of a foreign as well as a national consumption, in\norder that all the taxes might be productive.\n\nBut if the debt of 64 millions, contracted from 1754 to 1762, had\nincreased, by 10 _per cent._ the nominal value of all merchandise\nexported from _England_ since that period, how shall we prevent the 60\nmillions of the last debt, from increasing, from 8 to 10 _per cent._ the\nnominal value of all commodities to be exported after this later period?\n\nAnd if the general augmentation of prices, which has clearly followed the\ndebt contracted in _England_ from 1754 to 1762, has proved advantageous\nto all _Europe_, without hurting _England_, why should not the general\nincrease of prices, which results, and will inevitably result from the\nlast _English_ debt, prove unprejudicial to _England_, although it will\nprove advantageous to all _Europe_?\n\nBut if this increase of 10 _per cent._ generally acknowledged, in the\nprice of all merchandise in _Europe_, had extended only to the products\nof industry; if the price of the total of the produce of agriculture had\nnot increased in the same proportion;\u2014_had not Nature always silently\nand successfully opposed all the dreams of speculation on this head,\nto what a degree of misery and wretchedness would not agriculture have\nbeen reduced in all parts of our so much enlightened ~Europe~!_\u2014It was\nnot so.[10]\n\nThe quantity of wheat sold at _Berne_ at 69 _batz_, on a medium of five\nyears taken from 1751 to 1755, was sold for 92\u2157 _batz_ from 1766 to 1770.\n\nThe quantity of wheat sold at _Dijon_ at the lowest, 2_l._ 11_s._ 5_d._\non a medium of 5 years from 1753 to 1757, was sold at the lowest, 4_l._\n5_s._ 9_d._ on a medium of 5 years from 1766 to 1770.\n\nThe quantity of wheat sold at _B\u00e2le_ for 9_l._ 9_s._ on a medium of 5\nyears from 1754 to 1758, was sold for 13_l._ 14_s._ 2_d._ on a medium of\n5 years from 1766 to 1770.\n\nThe quantity of wheat sold at _Geneva_ for 27 _florins_, on a medium of\n5 years from 1751 to 1755, was sold for 37 _florins_, on a medium of 5\nyears from 1766 to 1770, (see _Arthur Young_\u2019s Political Arithmetic.)\n\nWe find upon the total, from 1755 to 1770, as I observed in my\n_Reflexions on a singular revolution in France_, about 40 _per cent._\nincrease in the price of wheat.\u2014Ten _per cent._ was enough to discharge,\nwithout expence to any body, and without any attention being paid to it,\nthe interest of the debt contracted in _England_, from 1755 to 1762; but\n30 _per cent._ more was necessary, in order to come (without injuring\n_England_) nearly to an equality with the _English_ price, a price\nadvantageous to the agriculture of all _Europe_; an advantageous price,\nwhich the _barriers_ and barricadoes set up in _France_, had till then\nprevented from extending to _Switzerland_.\n\nThe barriers having been removed, _Switzerland_ and _France_ must\nnecessarily have been enriched, or _England_ ruined:\u2014_France_ and\n_Switzerland_ were better pleased to be enriched; and so it will\nnecessarily happen after the removal of the barriers subsisting between\n_England_ and _Ireland_, that the agriculture of the latter must be\nenriched;\u2014unless she should choose to do herself a real prejudice by\nkeeping to all her former low prices, in order to procure an imaginary\nadvantage to _Irish_ industry, in hopes of prejudicing the _British_\nmanufacturer;\u2014which would indeed be very strange.\n\nBut if this proportionate augmentation in the price of every thing,\u2014as\nevident as it is necessary,\u2014as general as it is useful,\u2014as natural as\nit is little suspected,\u2014in consequence of a national debt contracted\nby a country trading with all _Europe_,\u2014getting rich by trading with\nall _Europe_,\u2014and who cannot get rich without sharing her wealth with\nall _Europe_,\u2014be also a complete demonstration of the burden being\nNULL, so soon as the little private interests have rendered it general,\nand no longer permit the supposition of its being productive of any\nother bad effects, but such as necessarily result from a bad system of\ntaxation; does the point lie in rectifying the system, or in effecting\na reimbursement?\u2014At least, is a tax to be levied for the purpose of\nreimbursing, before we have searched deep into THE QUESTION THE MOST\nINTERESTING TO SOCIETY THAT EVER WAS PROPOUNDED?\n\nAnd in the supposition, that it should result from the examination, as\nit does from my ideas, _that there neither is, nor can be any real and\nlasting harm in the taxes, but that which is the consequence of a bad\nsystem of taxation_; as there is however so much more harm done, at least\nof a transient nature, as there are more taxes imposed, even in the\nbest manner,\u2014would it not be necessary to conclude, that loans bearing\nannuities, esteemed the most advantageous to the State, (although they\nalways require an heavier, and sometimes a double taxation), might have\nproved the most pernicious and worst devised, _in any other circumstance\nbut that of a total discredit_, if they did not now furnish the Sovereign\nwith the means of redressing what is most oppressive in the old taxes,\nwithout imposing new ones?\n\n\n\n\n_On Luxury._\n\n_I can sum up all that I have said hitherto, by transcribing a couple\nof pages out of a pamphlet written in ~America~ in the year 1774, laid\nbefore the Academy of Sciences in 1778, and printed at Paris in 1781.\nI should certainly be excusable had I no other motive in this respect,\nthan to prove that my opinions are neither suggested by, nor depending on\ncircumstances. The reflexion contained in the following quotation from\nthat pamphlet, on the war that broke out in 1779, is but a survey of the\nnew order of things, which would not have presented itself to my mind,\nhad it not been in my power, even then, to have published in several\nlarge volumes, that which I now comprise within three hundred and some\npages, in order to render its perusal less laborious to the reader._\n\n    \u201cAll the mystery of society, consists in establishing, without\n    the knowledge, and to the greatest advantage of the parties\n    concerned, the most equal, the most exact, and the most\n    equitable division that possibly can be made, between the land\n    proprietors, who are in possession of all, and the _pilferers_\n    who are in possession of nothing.\n\n    \u201cThis division operates of itself, by shackling, as little as\n    possible, the natural passions of the one, and the factitious\n    passions of the others, that is to say, by obstructing, as\n    little as possible, communications of all kinds.\n\n    \u201cThis division is inseparable from the greatest possible\n    quantity of productions and consumptions, which cannot be\n    effected but by the greatest number of _productors_ and\n    consumers, who will always be found and attracted where the\n    laws shall be as little prohibitory as possible.\n\n    \u201cA prohibitory law in one country, may be, should be,\n    and no doubt will be, instantly followed by ten others,\n    in ten different countries, which will soon enforce the\n    _re-establishment of the equilibrium dictated by Nature, the\n    only one that deserves to be attended to, and the only one that\n    must prevail at last_.\n\n    \u201cTo the present war, _a war of revolution if ever there was\n    one_, will probably succeed the only useful and necessary\n    war that can be waged between nations enlightened by the\n    longest and most melancholy experience; a war essential to the\n    happiness of mankind, since the only contest left for decision\n    will be, who shall prove the most able to devise, or the most\n    ready to adopt, those laws that are calculated to procure _the\n    greatest possible consumption_, on which depends _the highest\n    degree of public revenue_:\u2014\n\n    \u201cDiscussions these, important at all times, dangerous for\n    every one a few years ago, unbecoming perhaps in a private\n    individual at a time when the true politicians of _Europe_ will\n    find themselves compelled to make them the object of their\n    most serious meditations;\u2014discussions, in fine, entirely out\n    of the way of a cultivator, who could not, without a palpable\n    folly, suffer himself to be led into them by the examination\n    of his blade of grass, and of a principle too evident to be\n    contested.\u201d (_Essai sur la culture de la canne \u00e0 sucre._)\n\n_When a man has shewn himself capable of looking upon a war as the\nreadiest means that could conduce to a general union of interests,\nno one will be surprised if that very man should allow to luxury the\nprincipal honour in the accomplishment of such a prophecy. Nor would\nany one be surprised if he were to add, that the rage for luxury, in\na discerning despot, would soon lead him to establish within his\ndominions the greatest freedom, from which alone he can expect the\ngreatest display of all kinds of luxury, the choice and first fruits\nof which would be always at his command. Nor again would any one be\nsurprised were the prophet to add, that wherever luxury should be at its\nsummit, none but the idle would be at a loss for a livelihood, and that\nnot a mean one; that even the idiot, as well as the worn-out labourer,\nwould find there, under the designation of a ~hospital~, an asylum equal\nto the habitation of a King:\u2014The habitation of the Kings of Great Britain\nis not comparable to some of her hospitals._\n\nWould not the question about luxury, reduced to its elements, like those\nother questions which I have touched upon hitherto, present consequences\ndiametrically opposite to those ideas which perhaps are yet too common,\nonly because they have not been thoroughly examined? Methinks I have\nadvanced one step towards the solution of the problem, by proving (if I\nhave proved it) that the tax laid on that pretended monster, Luxury, is\nin fact the most oppressive for the people, on account of the following\neffects, from which the impost cannot be freed.\n\nFirst, If that tax lessens the consumption of the article taxed,\nprovision must be made, by a fresh tax, for the _deficit_ in the first,\nwhich nevertheless has already deprived of sustenance, those who derived\nit only from that article of consumption annihilated by the tax.\n\nSecondly, If the rage for the article taxed, gets the better of the\nrigour of the tax, or in other words, of the absurd disproportion thereby\nestablished between the real and nominal value of that article, the land\nproprietor has no other resource left, whereby to provide for the tax,\nand for the rest of his standing expences, than to raise the prices of\nhis commodities accordingly; and the poor, whose consumption has not been\ntaxed, pays dearer, nevertheless, for his bread, and for all that he\nconsumes besides, whilst the tax laid on luxury alone, is pleaded by all\nthe _capitalists_ as a pretence for not increasing the price of labour\namongst the people they employ.\n\nThirdly, If the little private calculations, of which I have spoken, did\nnot rectify (as I contend they do by degrees, and as they ought to do\nsooner) the mistakes of the grand calculations in the administration of\nfinances; that is to say, if the land proprietor did not increase the\nprice of his commodities, in proportion as the tax bears heavy on that\narticle of luxury which he still persists to consume: it would appear\nstill more heinous in the eyes of the moralist; for those artificers who,\nwithout remorse, without a blush, should employ themselves in the work\nof _Satan_, of which the consumption should continue the same, would\nsubsist undisturbed in peace and plenty on that very work, whilst a\nconsiderable number of scrupulous artisans, employed hitherto on articles\nfree from censure, but of which the consumption should have decreased by\nthe counter-blow of the taxes on luxury, would most scandalously be left\nstarving and unemployed.\n\nI shall now inspect the question more minutely; for all I have said\nhitherto is not so much an apology for luxury, as an exposition of the\ninconveniences attending its being made the principal object of taxation:\nI beg to be excused, if I grow unwillingly more familiar in my style,\nwhen the dignity of the subject seems to require one of suitable dignity\nin the manner of treating it.\n\nIt is the quality of the land that determines the division of its\nproducts: however ungrateful the soil, the man who cultivates it, first\ndeducts what is necessary for his subsistence, and a trifle more; the\nrest is divided amongst the landlord and some others, for one reason\nor another admitted to a share. This division, determined by the most\ngeneral quality of the land, brings down the proprietor, who farms out\nhis estate, to about one third of its productions, and reduces nearly to\nthe like proportion, those who are employed in wresting them from the\nbottom of the earth.\n\nIn order therefore to consume as much as 80 men, the proprietor must\nhave a landed estate capable of giving food to 240; and out of these\n240, 160 must be provided for before the proprietor can think on his\nown consumption. Consequently, it would be unreasonable to call him to\nany other account than for that portion which he has received: but I\nreadily subscribe to the necessity of having that account examined with\nthe utmost rigour, since the object is to justify the dissipation of so\nconsiderable a surplus, and since the employment of that surplus, well\nascertained, will give us sufficient light on the employment of the other\nparts of the revenue, which by that means it will be useless to examine.\n\nThe highest pitch of extravagance, in point of luxury, is, beyond\ncontradiction, that which, in the smallest possible compass, contains the\nlargest quantity, as well as the greatest perfection of labour, and of a\nlabour the most easy to destroy.\n\nLet us suppose a man who, to the fancy of being possessed of such an\narticle, should join that of seeing constantly at work all those hands\nwhich must be employed to complete it; such a fancy never produces any\nother effect, but that of tertiating or doubling the price of things. The\nPatriarchs of old, busied and amused themselves, no doubt, in setting to\nwork those whom they enabled to eat; they lived too near the time when\nman was condemned to labour, to maintain them in idleness. The modern\nPatriarch of whom I am speaking, provided with a pound weight of flax,\nwhich costs him 6_d._ divides it among 25 working people, who give it\nevery preparation necessary to answer the purpose it is intended for.\nAfter an entire month of the most slavish precautions, the most minute\ndetails, a thread, hardly perceptible to the naked eye, presents to the\nwarm imagination of the proprietor, the idea of the _chef-d\u2019\u0153uvre_ of\nwhich this thread is to be the foundation; after 4 or 5 months more,\ndevoted to the most patient and assiduous industry, he is at last put in\npossession of some slips of lace, weighing in all 4 or 5 drachms, picked\nout and sorted, thanks to the last refinement of art, from that pound\nof flax which had cost six-pence. Five-pence three farthings, and a few\nfractions, are then, it seems, in the strictest calculation, the only\nreal loss\u2014the only devastation which is occasioned by luxury carried to\nthe highest pitch of extravagance; and this loss is compensated by some\nvery curious pieces of workmanship, which it is impossible to value at\nless than 227_l._ 10_s._ being the amount of 4550 days work at 12_d._\npaid to each of the 25 working people, who have owed their subsistence,\nfor six months, to that pretended inutility.\u2014Amongst all the passions\nwith which Providence has been pleased to gratify the rich for the\nadvantage of the poor, name me only one that occasions less devastation,\nand maintains a greater number of indigent persons, than luxury carried\nto excess. O ye rigid men, who have left off wearing lace, join with me\nwho have left it off too,\u2014join with me in teaching those who continue to\nwear it, how many of their brethren they nourish without knowing it! Make\nthem virtuous by teaching them, that in order to be so, they need only\ndo, from a sentiment of humanity, what hitherto perhaps they have done\nthrough a motive of puerile vanity, or from a principle of ostentation,\nwhich, when considered, needs to be considered with some indulgence.\n\nAnother aspect, whimsical enough perhaps, but by no means foreign to the\ntitle of this pamphlet, would be that under which we should view those\nprodigies of art and patience, as the work not only of 25 artificers\nwho were busied upon it for six months, but also of 12 or 15 husbandmen\nwhose existence and labour were indispensable for the sustenance,\nduring the same time, of the 25 labouring people employed in that great\nwork.... A peevish man would perhaps exclaim, _Was it indeed worth while\nto be born, if all ends with this life?_\u2014And yet, even in this case,\nthread-lace ought not to be proscribed: it was not worth while indeed to\ncome into the world, solely to make lace; but, once born, we must work\nat something, in order to bear, without weariness, every instant even of\na life which should not require lace-making for its support: as to the\nnature of the work, let us not find fault with that of others, before we\njustly estimate our own.... Can we find many of our fellow-creatures,\nwho on their death-bed are able to shew the work of their whole life ...\nworth the smallest shred of lace then in being?\n\nAfter this single instance of luxury, by which 25 men are fed during six\nmonths at the expence of another, by daily reducing his revenue from\n80 to 55, I think that, without being an enthusiast or a declaimer, it\nwould be difficult, even for a good man in the right sense of the word,\nto withstand the pleasure (although perhaps rather of the mischievous\nkind) of observing that little more is wanted beyond two such fancies\nas we have stated, to bring the Proprietor, reduced in the origin from\n240 shillings to 80, and then from 80 to 55\u2014to bring him, I say, exactly\nto the level of the cultivator, whom he has brought down to 9_d._\nor 10_d._ and of the mechanic on whom he has bestowed 11 or 12_d._;\nhowever, I am willing to allow him 24 for his real, personal, and daily\nconsumption. Twenty-four pence! will it be said, _What signifies being\nso rich, to consume so little_! Yes, twenty-four pence; and this is\nby much too much, if we deduct, as we ought, from the price of each\narticle supposed to be consumed by the rich, the sum that remains in\nthe hands of the pilferers of all kinds, who stand, unknown to him,\nbetween him and that article.\u2014_How! what say you then to that plate of\ngreen-peas which costs 6, 8, or 10 guineas!_\u2014But, my good friend the\nconsumer of green peas, if you knew how many pilferers it conceals, of\nwhom you have not the least idea! if you knew how many wants it has\nsupplied to some, how many indulgences of luxury it has procured to\nothers, before it found its way to the table of an Epicure, or of an\nostentatious man!\u2014Let us try to enumerate them: workers of mines and\nquarries, masons, carpenters, glaziers, colliers, lock-smiths, _English_\nand _French_ sailors for the common-spice trade; _Dutch_ seamen, for the\nmore precious kinds; ships of war of the three Powers, indispensable for\nthe protection of the merchantmen employed on those objects; wood-fellers\nin _Sweden_, sail-cloth weavers in _Russia_, ship-builders, pilots,\nadmirals of the three nations, husbandmen busied in the four parts of\nthe world in procuring food for themselves, in order to prepare food\nfor all those wood-fellers, glaziers, admirals, &c. exclusive of the\n_Dutch_ gardener, and the _French_ cook who alone can worthily crown\nthe mighty operation.\u2014Imagination loses itself in that single plate of\ngreen peas. How many reductions from 16 pence to 8, and from 8 to 4,\nhave been required to produce it! It is inconceivable that it should\nnot sell for more than 6 or 8 guineas;\u2014but if each of those pilferers\nabove mentioned takes back the small portion by which he has increased\nthe intrinsic value of the article.... O ye, who must have swallowed up\n500 _properties_, in order to eat, without being guilty of extravagance,\nthat plate of green peas, and who flatter yourselves with the idea\nof having consumed on that day fifty or sixty crowns worth, learn and\nreflect henceforward, without remorse and without vanity, that you have\nnot spent above half one penny, the real value of any other dish of\ngreens which you might have substituted to the peas you have consumed.\n\nScrutinise, in the same manner, your wearing apparel; choose, like a\nchild, what pleases most the eyes of the body; or, like a fastuous man,\nall that is most imposing to the eyes of the imagination; or, miser-like,\nthat which costs least money; or, in fine, like a man of sense, what\nyour means or your taste incline you to wear; the difference, as to\nessentials, is little or none. It cannot be positively asserted, that\nyour consumption will be more or less considerable in one than in the\nother case; but recollect that thread lace, for which you could not pay\nless than 227_l._ 10_s._ because there stand between you and the pound of\nflax from which it has been extracted, 35 or 40 intermediate pilferers,\nto be fed during six months;\u2014this lace, however, in spite of that\nextravagant price, could not, as you have seen, be set down to account\namongst the articles of your real and personal consumption, for more than\nsixpence, supposed to be the intrinsic value of a pound weight of flax,\nwhich has gone through so many hands to be converted into lace. Now, on\nthis principle, you might be wrapped in lace from head to foot: and your\nentire _mummy_, instead of presenting to the eye of a sworn appraiser\na consumption of 30 or 40,000_l._ would in this instant of its highest\nsplendor, only present him with a devastation of 200_lb._ of flax,\nsacrificed to decorate that mummy, or to hide its defects.\u2014And as the\nobject would be 200_lb._ of flax, the value of which is fully known by\nthe number of people to whom it would afford support, instead of dealing\nso lightly as I did with a single pound, when I introduced my Patriarch,\nthe appraiser would reckon with you rigorously; he would consider, that\nin the hands of the Arts, no part of the works of the creation can be\nlost; that, as it is their triumph, so it is their duty, to divide into\n10, 20, or 30 parts, whatever requires such a division, in order that\neach may receive the degree of utility of which it is susceptible, and\nwhich the Arts are bound to account for to society: the appraiser would\nthen carry you to the lace-merchant, in order to lay before you ten\ndifferent sorts of an inferior lace, taken from parts chosen successively\nafter that which serves you for a wrapper, and descending still from\npilfery to pilfery, he would at last inveigle you into the cabins of\nsome pretended wretch, where he would shew you the quantity of coarse\nand substantial shirts, necessary to teach you that 3 or 4 _lb._ of\nflax, at the most, are the only possible devaluations your mummy can be\nreproached with, as two shillings are the only expence your vanity can\nboast of in the 25 or 30,000_l._ which you could presume to have consumed.\n\nYet, let us grant something to the pretended importance of being\npossessed of 500 _properties_, each of them sufficient to the support\nof one man. I shall accordingly suppose you to be habitually cloathed\nin those stuffs, which, to the richness of the materials that compose\nthem, join the perfection of workmanship, (which concerns you, as you\nhave seen, in no other light, but that of either a benevolent, or an\nunintentional provider for the necessary consumption of the labouring\nman);\u2014but 10 _lb._ of silk, as they come out of Nature\u2019s hands, are not\nworth 30 shillings:\u2014without enquiring why they may then be valued at 30\nshillings, bring all the other parts of your dress to the touchstone I\nhave furnished you with; consider, that if you wear the same coat every\nday, it would be far from being worn out at the end of the year,\u2014and\nhow far it would be of course from standing for two or three pence\nin the account of your daily consumption;\u2014add thereto your real and\npersonal wastings in coals, wood, pomatum, essences, elixirs, &c. _valued\nafter the same principle_;\u2014at what a distance you still remain from\nthe 24 pence I have granted you for consumption!\u2014And do not say that\nyou renew your coat every season;\u2014had you swallowed up 5000 instead of\n500 _properties_, and should you change cloaths every day, your real\nconsumption would not be the greater for it: would not your _valet\nde chambre_, to whom you should have given that suit of cloaths, for\nwhich you had paid 40 guineas, and which you had worn only once\u2014would\nnot, I say, your _valet de chambre_ sell it for 15 guineas to an old\ncloaths-man, who would get 20_l._ for it from a strolling player?\u2014Be\npleased now to trace that suit from _Paris_ to _Lisle_, to _Brussels_,\n_Dresden_, _Poland_, _Russia_; see how many people will get a livelihood\nby carrying it about; how many guineas it will bring to the travelling\n_Roscius_, who will shine in so many countries at your expence; reflect,\non the revolutions which the elegance of that dress will occasion in\nthe modes at _Petersburgh_; how many draughtsmen, embroiderers, working\npeople of all sorts, will be employed and fed, (_thanks to your luxury_),\nin copying that master-piece of taste and fancy.\u2014This is not all; you\nmight probably, at the end of 15 years, meet again in _Paris_ with the\nsame suit, cut into small pieces, in the hands of some ladies of the\nfirst rank, busily engaged in unweaving the rags, to send, as soon as\npossible, those precious relics of your seemingly spoiled cloaths, to\n_Lyons_, &c. where ten workmen are waiting its arrival, to get bread by\nrestoring to it a great part of its former value, under another form.\u2014And\nyou would presume to have consumed it?... The work of God is not so\neasily destroyed, nor his beneficence so easily concentered.\n\n\n_Was it worth being so rich, to consume so little?_\n\nWere you to say, _Is it worth while to commit an injustice in order to\ngrow rich, when we can consume but so little, and when the means are so\nnumerous of pilfering so lawfully all that is wanted for consumption?_\nI could then understand you;\u2014but since you are in possession of 500\n_properties_ without having been guilty of injustice, it is something to\nreflect that they are really to you, the source of numberless enjoyments\nwhich you have it in your power to render worthy of a rational being:\nand, as the continuance of those enjoyments depends entirely on the\nhealth and bodily strength of so many others who are to contribute\nthereto, it is something to be conscious that we find our own pleasures\nin the interest of others; it is something to reflect, that these\npleasures are a very gentle mean, devised most probably by an universal\n_Watchfulness_, to induce you to provide men destitute of every thing,\nwith that _modicum_ of goods which was not granted to them, and which,\nnevertheless, being necessary for their sustenance, is sufficient to\ntheir moderation, and prevents their feeling the privation of all the\nrest: it is something to reflect, that you feed in fact 50, 100, 500\nperhaps of your brethren, amongst whom there are 10, 15, 30, as well\nfed as yourself, since they live on what comes from your table. As to\nthe others, whose faces you will never see, since some of them are at\n_Pekin_, in _Arabia_, at _Constantinople_, and others in _France_,\n_Russia_, &c. be assured that, with much less meat than you, but more\nbread, potatoes, or rice, and a few glasses of an acid liquor, the idea\nof which, whilst I venture to speak of it, is enough to crisp all your\nnerves, they are as contented, as happy as you, because they consume,\nwithout any reflection, without any solicitude for the morrow, all they\nwant, in order to view that morrow with the same tranquillity.\u2014Would it\nnot be unjust in that Being, _who weigheth the mountains in a balance_,\nif there were, amongst men, one condition more unfortunate than another?\nWould he not be unjust, if amongst men, there were one condition more\nblessed than another? I suppose, indeed, that there exists a Being,\n_who weigheth the mountains in a balance_, as others have supposed that\nthere is a future life, where happiness is more visibly equal; and I\nhave hitherto ventured upon so many suppositions!\u2014yet I would beg leave\nto offer one more, relating though indirectly perhaps to the object\nnow under consideration; but this shall be the last: I will ask (upon\nthe supposition that there really exists a Being, not only Estimator,\nModerator, but Creator also of all that thinks, wishes, and can be\nhappy) ... yes, I presume to ask, whether the created being, capable of\nconceiving the idea of giving immortality to the creature capable of\nwishing for it, of fostering the hopes, and feeling the value of it,\nwould not be greater than the Creator himself, if the Creator had not\nconceived such an idea?\u2014I freely confess, that I should think myself\nbetter than the Creator, had the Creator conceived such an idea without\nputting it in execution.\n\nI now return to the point which requires no kind of supposition, I\nmean the real consumption.\u2014Let us pass from that very insignificant\npossessor of 500 _properties_, to the greatest Monarch upon earth.\u2014What\ndifference is there between his consumption and that of the meanest of\nhis subjects?\u2014He has the choice of every thing, such is the _ne plus\nultra_ of his power: three, four, or five pounds weight of nourishing\nfood, are really as sufficient for the one as they are necessary to the\nother;\u2014and on all points, what is the object that procures to the Monarch\neither advantage or pleasure, the price of which as paid by him, _were it\neven of fourfold the value_, is not exactly composed, both of the amount\nof the sustenance that was necessary to the production of that object,\nand of a sum which will infallibly pay for other productions, which must\nbe purchased to forward new ones\u2014_from which the people will constantly\nhave deducted their necessaries, before they are permitted to satisfy the\nsuperfluities, the luxury of any whosoever_?\u2014Such is that never-ending\nscrew, that adorable chain, which nothing can stop or break, unless it be\nthe insanity of a monster, who should receive that fourfold price, and\nbury it under ground, lest it should prove useful to society.\u2014That wretch\nwas very consistent with his feelings, who wished the _Roman_ people\nto have but one head, that he might exterminate the whole nation at a\nsingle blow; but the ph\u0153nix will ever rise from its ashes; and Humanity,\nwith all her resources, all her rights, would be reproduced from the very\nstones, were it possible that not a single head should escape the sword\nof that _consistent being_ who might wish to cut them all off.\n\n\n\n\n_Thoughts on the Colonies._\n\n\nThe question concerning luxury leads to the investigation of some ideas\non the Colonies; I do not mean that of taxing them, either in a direct or\nindirect manner, for the reason truly specious, that the wars undertaken\nfor their protection, having loaded the nation with taxes to an enormous\namount, it is but just that they should come in for a share of the burden.\n\nIt has been observed, that a national debt contracted, no matter for\nwhat, occasioning in every thing an indispensable increase of price, the\nColonies pay their quota of such a debt (notwithstanding the drawbacks)\nwhen they purchase goods at the rate to which the said debt has advanced\nthem: it must also have been noticed, even how necessary it was that the\nprice of commodities from the Colonies should increase in proportion\nto the price of those of the Mother-country, in order that the former\nmight be able to answer that advance of prices, without hurting the two\nessential points, consumption and re-production; whence it follows,\nthat if new taxes are introduced, _either directly or indirectly_, to\ndefray their pretended proportion in the interest of the national debt,\nneither harm nor good will result, _if the price of their commodities be\nincreased in the same proportion_; but that if they be taxed, without\nthat increase in the price of their commodities, they will consume by\nso much less of national goods _or of foreign ones paid for in national\nmerchandise_, that is, to the amount of the sum which the tax shall have\ntaken from them: this point is evident. Thus it is, that after the war\nin 1755, all _Europe_ was obliged, as has been shewn, to increase her\nprices, so as to put them on a level with those in _England_; and had not\n_Great Britain_ submitted to that reciprocal advance, and all the rest of\n_Europe_ condescended to receive only, for the 13 _effective_ millions of\ntheir own goods, the 13 _nominal_ millions of that quantity of _English_\ncommodities which was worth 14, on account of the taxes only, the nominal\nmillion which would have remained in the hands of _England_, would have\nbeen without value, _and no longer reproduced for want of consumption,\nfor want of means to pay for it, and to encourage such a reproduction_.\n\nI think also that it is useless to examine whether the colonies can add\nany thing to the real power of a nation, since, in order to be convinced\nof the very reverse, it is enough to observe, that if 2 or 300 ships\nmounting from 10 to 120 guns be required, in order to protect effectually\nan extent of between 1500 and 2000 leagues of _colonial_ coasts, distant\n1000, 1500, nay 4000 leagues from the mother-country, the 100,000\nmen employed in time of war, on those floating citadels, are always\nfurnished by the Metropolis, and do not in any manner exempt her either\nfrom erecting those permanent citadels which must be scattered along\nthe coasts of the mother-country, or from providing the number of men\nnecessary to defend them in case of an invasion. In this point of view,\nthe colonies would therefore rather diminish than increase the national\npower.\n\nOn the other hand, experience has just taught us, that as soon as those\nvery colonies, for which it is pretended so much blood has been spilt,\nand so much money wasted, are in a situation to stand up in their own\ndefence, there is no depending upon them, but inasmuch as they are on\nthe footing of allies; and interest alone fixes the duration of every\nalliance.\n\nThe above three objects deserve not, methinks, any further dissertation:\nthe question that merits a more particular scrutiny, is that which\nconcerns the utility of those very colonies, when their weakness is a\npledge of their fidelity.\n\nThat utility consists in securing to the mother-country, 1st, an\nexclusive mart for such goods as she thinks proper to export there; and\n2dly, the exclusive sale of the returns, in which, it is said, she finds\na compensation for the expence she is at to carry her goods to that\nmarket.\n\nI shall investigate, under various points of view, all relative to those\ntwo objects, the utility of those colonies whose commerce is fully\nascertained, before I speak of any other; and I shall only draw the\nnecessary inferences from the most incontrovertible facts.\n\n_1st._\n\nWe find in the Statements of Sir _Charles Whitworth_, that the exports\nfrom _England_ to the colonies, whose independence can no longer be\ndisputed, amounted annually, upon a medium of 5 years, taken from 1769 to\n1773, to the sum of 2,491,230_l._\n\nNow the two wars of 1739 and 1755, undertaken, it is said, for\nthe protection of those colonies, that is, _to preserve_ to the\nmother-country _the monopoly of them_, have cost _Great Britain_\n99,141,625_l._; and these 99 millions, though the interest has been\nreduced as often as possible, still cost _England_ annually 3,500,000_l._\n\nIt is then a sum of 3,500,000_l._ which, even so early as the year 1762,\n_England_ had resolved to pay annually, in order to preserve, and the\nbetter to secure to herself the exclusive privilege of exporting annually\nto _North-America_, _European_ goods to the amount of 2,491,230_l._\n\n_2dly._\n\nThe imports from those colonies into _Great Britain_, upon a medium\nof the said 5 years, did not exceed the sum of 1,208,665_l._\u2014_Great\nBritain_, therefore, has enjoyed during the space of 5 years, a pretended\nbalance of 1,282,565_l._ against those colonies;\u2014but is that glorious\nbalance any thing more than the advantage of having given to those\ncolonies, in the space of 5 years, a credit in the sum of 6,412,825_l._\nsupposing that such sum was the amount of her claims in that part of\n_America_, or of the half, if in fact half only of that sum remained\ndue to her, notwithstanding the enormous appearance in Sir _Charles\nWhitworth_\u2019s Statements?\n\n_3dly._\n\nIf the colonies, now independent, will henceforth call in all the other\nnations of _Europe_ to a share in the advantage of crediting them in the\nsame manner, can it be supposed that _England_ will not find in _Europe_,\nsome other nation willing to receive that part of the _English_ credit,\nwhich the independent colonies shall no longer think proper to make\nuse of? In this case, can any thing more be required, on the part of\n_England_, than to manufacture in less quantity such goods as suit only\nthe inhabitants of _America_, and somewhat more of those that may suit\nthe different nations of _Europe_; and to this first operation to add the\ncomplaisance of receiving a greater quantity of their goods than she has\nimported hitherto?\u2014In this case likewise, what ruinous consequences could\n_England_ experience by exporting her goods to her neighbours, instead\nof sending them to _America_?\n\n_4thly._\n\nIf the complaints set up by _England_ against the United States, are\ngrounded only on their incapacity of making returns proportionate to the\nvalue of the goods exported there since the peace, are the United States\nto blame if _European_ cupidity has exported to _America_, in the space\nof six months, as much as its inhabitants could consume and pay for in\ntwo years? Does such an event, almost infallibly the result of a long\ninterruption of correspondence, prove any thing more than the necessity\nof a balance between production and consumption, the advantage of knowing\nas soon as possible the difference from the one to the other, the\ninconvenience of a trade, in which we lose sight of our capital for whole\nyears together, and the advantage of a trade which would 5 or 6 months\nafter return to the hands of the _capitalist_ the stock he had laid out?\n\n_5thly._\n\nHad even those colonies remained in, or returned to a state of subjection\nto _England_, would not the same interruption of correspondence have been\nproductive of the same inconvenience?\u2014During the war, which terminated\nby the treaty of _Aix-la-Chapelle_, all the _French_ colonies had\nremained under the dominion of _France_, and yet during all the first,\nand great part of the second year of peace most of the _French_ goods\nwere sold at _Martinique_ and _St. Domingo_, 15 and 20 _per cent._ below\nthe prime cost in _Europe_;\u2014between dependent and independent colonies,\nthen, in this respect, who can perceive a shadow of difference?\n\n_6thly._\n\nIf the _English_ merchants, after having over-stocked the _American_\nmarkets with _European_ goods, have attempted to strip _America_ of the\nlittle money she had to boast of, and to leave her goods on her own\nhands, do the complaints set up in _England_ on this subject, prove\nany thing essential either to _England_, or to the rest of the world,\nmore than the impossibility of carrying into execution beyond a certain\ndegree, the plan, as destructive as it is absurd, of any other trade but\nthat which is founded on a reciprocity of advantages, on _an exchange of\nthe gifts with which Nature and Art have favoured one country, against\nthose with which Nature and Art have favoured another country_? And\neven, upon a supposition, that _America_ should have returned under the\ndomination of _England_, if the _English_ merchants had, in this case,\nattempted to wrest from her the little money she was possessed of, would\nnot the _American_ colonists have been justified in taking every measure\nnecessary to preserve it?\u2014Would they in enforcing that right have been\nfree from the misfortune, common to mankind, of always doing, in order to\nguard against an injury, much more than is either just or necessary?\u2014The\nimpossibility of making returns adequate to the extravagant invoices sent\nby the _French_ traders to their colonies in _America_, after the war\nI have mentioned, determined also the agents of the _French_ trade to\nstrip those colonies of all the money they could lay their hands upon:\nno other way to put a stop to that spoliation was left, but to bore in\nthe middle of their dollars a large hole, which restoring the equilibrium\nbetween the rapacity of the foreign trader, and the wants of the interior\ncommerce, preserved within those colonies the trifling sum in specie\nthat still remained there. Soon after, the equilibrium was also restored\nbetween the imports and the consumption; and from that instant an end was\nput to the thirst after money, as well as to the necessity of boring the\ndollars.\u2014What difference then can exist, in this respect also, between a\ncolony and a free State?\n\n_7thly._\n\nAll the exports from _England_ to the colonies, the monopoly of which\nshe has preserved by the peace, (including her trade to _India_)\namounted, in 1773, to 2,430,420_l._ (for the details see Sir _Charles\nWhitworth_). Now the annual expence of the _British_ navy, and its\naccessaries, considering the increase in that of _France_, must be, at\npresent, or will be soon, 2,000,000_l._ May it not be fairly concluded,\nthat _England_ is about to pay the annual sum of 2 millions sterling, in\norder to maintain herself in the exclusive privilege of carrying annually\nto the distance of 1500, of 2000, of 4 or 6000 leagues, the value of\n2,432,420_l._ in _European_ goods?\u2014And would not that privilege be dearly\nbought, were not _France_ to lay out annually likewise 45 millions of\nlivres _tournois_, in protecting her privileged exportation?\n\n_8thly_,\n\nI have at present before my eyes no other standard, whereby to estimate\nthe exportation of _France_ to her sugar-colonies, than that of _England_\nto hers; that exportation amounted, in 1773, to 197,236_l._ But the\npopulation of the _French_ colonies is far from being in a treble\nproportion to that of the _English_ colonies, and luxury is equal in\nboth; yet let us suppose that the amount of the exports from _France_\nto her colonies, including those she sends to _India_, be annually 80\nmillions _tournois_.\u2014The interest of the national debt in _France_ is 202\nmillions _tournois_, (see _Administration des Finances de la France_)\none half, or rather three fourths of which have been incurred for the\nprotection of her establishments in those parts of the world.\u2014May it\nnot be said, that _France_ is at the yearly expence of 150 millions\n_tournois_, independently of the 45 millions for her navy, for the\npurpose of maintaining herself in the exclusive privilege of exporting\nevery year the value of 80 millions _tournois_, in _European_ goods, to\nher possessions in _India_ and _America_?\n\n_9thly_,\n\nAll the _European_ exports, carried by _England_ in the year 1773,\neither to _India_, _Africa_, or _America_, including the exports for\nwhich she held an exclusive privilege in the part of _America_ now\nindependent, amounted to 4,975,192_l._ we shall say 5 millions:\u2014if you\nvalue at 10 millions of the same currency, the exports of all the other\nnations of _Europe_ to those parts of the world, we shall find a capital\nof 15 millions sterling in goods annually exported from _Europe_:\u2014but\nthe yearly expence of a navy, which cannot be dispensed with for the\nprotection of those exports, is valued at 8 millions sterling, 4 of\nwhich fall to the share of _England_ and _France_.\n\nExclusive of those 8 millions sterling, the interest paid by _England_\nto acquire, preserve, and protect that part of _European_ exports that\nconcerns her, amounts to about 6,500,000_l._ including that of the last\nwar; the interest paid by _France_, comes nearly to the same sum; the\ninterest paid by _Spain_ could not be computed, were the depopulation\nof that country to be taken into the account; but estimate them at 4\nmillions, including those which other _European_ nations have sacrificed\nto the same Idol: let us say nothing about _Holland_, who for many\nyears (except the few last) has made some figure _Europe_, only by her\ngood luck in alleviating the distresses of others, her sole motive for\nwhich was her own advantage: and we shall sum up, at last, an annual\nexpenditure of 25 millions sterling, in interest and naval expences,\nincurred by _Europe_, in order to preserve the exclusive privilege, 1st,\nof exporting every year 15 millions sterling in _European_ goods to her\ncolonies, both in _India_ and _America_; and, 2dly, of establishing in\nthose colonies _the system of government best calculated to prevent that\nexportation from becoming more considerable_.\n\n_10thly_,\n\nWe have observed, that the exports from _England_ to the colonies of\n_America_, and to _India_, amounted, in 1773, to 4,900 and some thousand\npounds sterling, suppose 5 millions: now her importation of commodities\nfrom those various countries is about 5,900,000_l._ (see Sir _Charles\nWhitworth_); but we have also noticed, that she left yearly in _North\nAmerica_ 1,282,000_l._ more than she received therefrom. This matter,\nconsidered in the most favourable light, that is, as a balance of trade,\nought to be added to the former; and the whole together will give us a\ntotal of 7 millions, shewing an annual benefit of 2 millions some hundred\nthousand pounds sterling.\n\nIt appears then, that an annual benefit of 2 millions some hundred\nthousand pounds sterling costs _England_ annually 6,500,000_l._ interest\nfor her debt, and 2 millions for the support of her navy.\n\n_11thly_,\n\nWe have seen, that the annual and general exportation of _European_ goods\nto _America_ and _India_ amounted to about 15 millions sterling.\u2014If 5\nmillions of _English_ exports return no more than 2 millions some hundred\nthousand pounds annual benefit to _England_, that _England_, who sets\nthe highest price on her goods of all kinds, the general exportation of\n15 millions, to which _England_ contributes only one third, cannot, of\ncourse, afford to the whole of _Europe_, a profit of above 6 millions and\nsome hundred thousand pounds;\u2014but it seems that a benefit of 6 millions\nand some hundred thousand pounds is dearly bought at the rate of 25\nmillions laid out annually by _Europe_, both in paying the interest of\ntheir respective national debts, and for the support of the _European_\nnavies designed to preserve, protect, and secure such a benefit.\n\n_12thly_,\n\nIf it were very true, as it is to this day asserted, that those 25\nmillions of annual and indisputable expenditure, are in reality so many\nyearly losses to the nations who sustain it, might it not be reasonably\nconcluded, would it not be impossible not to conclude, that all the\ncolonies of _Europe_ were established only for her ruin?\u2014If we only\nattend to the last war, which in fact loads the different nations who\ntook a share in it, with an annual interest of 9 or 10 millions,\u20149 or 10\nmillions to be paid every year, partly to preserve the right, partly to\nobtain the permission of exporting _European_ commodities into a country,\nof which the inhabitants, besides their own importation, consume annually\nto the amount of only 2,491,230_l._ of those same commodities which are\nexported to them by others\u2014who (to assume the trader\u2019s phrase) cannot\nclear by that exportation, a greater annual profit than 3, 4, or even\n500,000_l._! ... it seems indeed that one cannot see without surprise and\nconcern, the shocking disproportion between the end proposed, and the\nsole means of obtaining it.\n\n_13thly_,\n\nIf, on the contrary, it be true, as I maintain it to be, that after the\npeace, when a perfect equilibrium is restored to every thing, the 9 or\n10 millions interest of the national debt, has no other effect but that\nof ADDING TO EVERY THING A NOMINAL VALUE WHICH INJURES NO ONE, THOUGH\nIT MAY BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO MANY; A NOMINAL VALUE, WHICH, IN EVERY STATE,\nPROPORTIONS ITSELF, FIRST TO THE SUM OF ITS REVENUE COMPARED TO THAT OF\nITS DEBT, AND SOON AFTER TO THE DIFFERENCE WHICH THE DEBT CONTRACTED\nBY THE NATION CALLED THE MOST LOADED, AND WHICH, IN FACT, IS ONLY THE\nGREATEST EXPORTER, HAS PRODUCED IN THAT ENORMOUS QUANTITY OF THE GOODS\nSHE EXPORTS;\u2014if it appear more reasonable to adopt that idea, than to\ngive up a trade, which, without that very idea, would prove the most\nabsurd, as well as the most destructive that human genius could invent,\n(_the alternative seems to be forcibly established_);\u2014in this case the\nregret will be heart-felt, when we consider the loss of men sacrificed\nduring the last war: but if from this general aggregate of truths little\nsuspected, and much less reflected upon, there should result a system\nof Politics in _Europe_, of Administration in her different States,\nof Government in her Colonies, which should procure to _Europe_, at\nthe least expence, the greatest exportation of that of which she has a\nsuperabundance, and the greatest importation of that in which she is\ndeficient ... then indeed, then, might we find consolation for the evil,\nin adverting to its consequences.\u2014And, upon this principle, what can\n_England_ have suffered by losing her sovereignty over _America_?\n\n_14thly_,\n\nThe contagion of example has been apprehended. Let us suppose the fact.\nWhat then would be the loss sustained by _Europe_? None, I believe,\nunless the consequence of the general independency of the colonies,\nshould be that they would give up _European_ commodities they have been\nused to, and which they can so readily procure by means of a multitude\nof other articles, which would be of no value to them were they not\ncalculated to procure them those _European_ commodities which they are\nin the habit of consuming.\u2014But I beg leave to ask, what purpose could\ntheir independence answer?\u2014It appears to me, they could not think of it\nwithout a palpable folly; and that it is impossible they should think of\nit, _without that kind of vexation which brings a man to the necessity\nof choosing between two extremes_.\u2014Another consideration, which tends to\nmake _Europe_ easy, at least in regard to the colonies situated beyond\nthe tropic, is, that no rivalship can subsist between them and their\nmother-countries in any thing that concerns the soil and industry.\n\nIn regard to the productions of the soil, all that part of _America_\ninclosed within even the 30th degree of north, and the 30th degree of\nsouth latitude, could not yield, without double and treble expence,\nany thing that can be produced in _Europe_, and in the other part of\n_America_, from the 30th degree to the pole. And, on the other hand, at\nwhat an amazing expence must all _Europe_, jointly with that part of\n_America_ now independent, produce, even in a kind of degradation, what\nthe other part of _America_ yields naturally in the most perfect state!\n\nIn regard to industry, can it be feared that the _South Americans, even\nsupposing them independent_, should be tempted to import rough materials\nfrom _Europe_, in order to have them wrought by _American hands, which\nare so naturally and so profitably employed in the production of American\narticles_? Is it even to be feared that they should aim at a competition\nwith the _Europeans_ in the exportation of _American_ articles, when they\nare in need of ship-timber, or rather when in this, much more than in any\nother respects, there is no _European_ work, which, if done in _America_,\nwould not cost three times as much as when imported from _Europe_?\u2014All\n_European_ prejudices, relative to commerce, are founded on the following\nprinciple, which may be looked upon as the _quintessence_ of the\nNavigation-Act:\u2014_To do every thing ourselves, in order that no one\u2019s\nassistance may be wanted,\u2014that no one may do without our assistance,\u2014and\nthat no assistance be given, but at the prices prescribed by the Lords of\nthe Seas._\u2014The Navigation-Act was, without doubt, the last effort of the\nhuman mind about the middle of the 17th century[11].\n\nIt seems to me, that the only point which essentially concerns all\n_Europe_, in regard to other parts of the world, where she can give law,\nwould be to find out _what kind of Administration would be the best\ncalculated to increase in all those parts the consumption of ~European~\n_goods, and to procure to herself a more considerable stock of foreign\ngoods and products,\u2014which would, as they have ever done, give, ~either\ndirectly or indirectly~, a fresh encouragement to her agriculture and\nmanufactures_. Let any one examine, whether the utility of the colonies\nbe not strictly confined to this single point.\n\nI speak of all _Europe_, it is true, as if she formed but one State,\nwhilst she is supposed to exhibit so many interests, and these so very\nopposite to each other. This question deserves a deeper discussion than I\nam able to give it; yet I presume to think that the answer I could give,\nmight be susceptible of demonstration, had we, on all the countries in\n_Europe_, statements only similar to those which Sir _Charles Whitworth_\nhas given of the _British_ trade, and were we to add thereto the means\nand faculties which are to be met with in _England_ of procuring the\ndetails and proofs of every particular that concerns the public.\nDestitute however of an advantage so precious, so worthy of a nation\nsufficiently enlightened to dread nothing but being left in the dark\non any part of her own interests, of a nation judicious enough not to\ndisdain a ray of light, from whatever quarter it may come, and generous\nenough to perceive, with pleasure, that by enriching herself, she has, to\nthis day, enriched all _Europe_;\u2014\n\nIf it were admitted, that money is only the representation of value;\nthat multiplying the sign, without multiplying the articles which it is\ncalculated to represent, is debasing fruitlessly the representation; and\nthat, on the contrary, multiplying the article is the most infallible\nmeans of attracting the sign and keeping it up to its value:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that nothing contributes so much to the\nmultiplying of the articles, as the multiplicity of the channels through\nwhich they can be introduced:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that the multiplicity of channels in another\nnation, for the introduction of our own goods, is necessarily inseparable\nfrom the multiplicity of channels opened in our own country for the\nintroduction of foreign goods:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that with the fullest persuasion that money\nought to be the sole aim of trade, it has only proved, hitherto, the\nmeans of supporting it:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that notwithstanding the prejudices to the\ncontrary, as deeply rooted in the heads of Ministers, as they are in the\nhearts of Merchants, and notwithstanding all the national cupidities,\nprivate interest in all countries has always proved sufficient to reject\neffectually all the _useless_, and procure all the _necessary_ money:\n\nIf it should result, not from arguments, which very seldom contain what\nthey ought to contain, in order to become uncontrovertible, but from\nthe experience of a whole century, sufficient to estimate the effect of\nthe passion the most ardent, and the most attached to its object, that\ncontrary to the common ideas, and in spite of the general rage for money,\nthe whole of commerce has, to this day, been ultimately confined to _its\ntrue balance_, i. e. _to bartering goods for goods_, except the little\nmoney which is wanted every where, and which has constantly penetrated\nevery where, to answer either to the new productions when they had\nactually increased in their quantity, or to the advance of prices when\nthe taxes had at last produced every where, and on the generality of\nprices, their effect, as equitable as it is necessary and harmless:\n\nIf the same experience should evince, that the richest individual, or\nhe who becomes such the soonest, has no other advantage in point of\ncommerce, than the choice of the men whom he is pleased to admit to a\nshare of his wealth without impairing it; and that the inference to be\ndrawn therefrom is, _that such a man must be a dupe who confines his\nchoice to ten, when he can make it from among thirty_:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that riches and ease, like the light, stand in\nwant of no assistance whatever, to propagate themselves equally in every\ndirection, _as general interest requires_; that the private interest of\none man, or of a body of men, is always sufficiently opposed, protected,\nbalanced, by the interest of another man, or of another body of men,\n_wherever administration confines its attention to the maintenance of\nstrict justice and good order_; and that from this equilibrium in which\nthey mutually keep, or soon replace one another, there results, for both,\nthe greatest advantage they can hope for, and for the State the highest\nprosperity it can attain:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that on all these various objects, no difference\nwhatever can subsist between one nation and another:\n\nIf it were acknowledged also, that all _Europe_, as well as each State\nin particular, is essentially, finally, strictly, composed only of three\nkinds of _capitalists_, or proprietors, the _landed capitalist, the\ncapitalist of industry, and the proprietor of money_, considered either\nas a dependant or as a _capitalist_:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that those three interests center in the\ngreatest quantity, as well as the greatest variety and best quality,\nof the products both of agriculture and industry, and in the greatest\nconsumption of both at the most reasonable rate:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that the _Fisc_, or Exchequer, owes the whole\nof its revenue to the produce of the taxes only; and that this produce\nrising of course as the productions and consumption increase, the\ninterest of the Exchequer can no where be different from that of the\nthree capitalists or proprietors:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that _at present_ nothing can result from\nseveral institutions, pretended very wise, but a great diminution in the\nproducts and consumption, as well as in the revenue of the Exchequer;\nbecause there is nothing so easy as to balance, every where, institutions\npretended very wise, by others not less so:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that the _necessary_ expenditure of the\nExchequer once ascertained, all diminution of its revenue, occasioned by\nthe pretended very wise institutions, carries with it the necessity of\nimposing new taxes, in order to make up the _deficit_ of former ones:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that each new tax, increasing necessarily the\nprice of every thing in the nation, _for the purpose of supporting, at\nleast, the interior consumption, on which depends the discharge of the\ntaxes_, would add to the inconvenience brought about by those pretended\nvery wise regulations, _and would soon lead to a decrease in the external\nconsumption, which the nation might have preserved_, if other countries\ndid not raise their own prices accordingly, in order to pay with the\nsame products the same quantity of articles which they used to take\nbefore the advance occasioned by the taxes; that therefore such a general\npropagation of increase in prices, being of a general interest to the\nproduction and consumption every where, would not fail to take place\nevery where as it has always done, and to dwindle again into a childish\nplay, much beneath the adolescence of the age we live in:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that the general repeal of those pretended very\nwise institutions could, at the worst, be productive of no other effect\n_within the State_, but that of a general rise in the prices, wherever\nthey are not in due proportion to the real values, and a general fall\nin all the prices, wherever they are fixed by monopoly, and not by the\nnatural equilibrium; but that, whereas nothing but profit can accrue to\nthose who raise their prices, it is very probable that the prices would\nincrease much more almost _every where_, than they would decrease _any\nwhere_:\n\nIf it were, besides, acknowledged that such an increase, or decrease,\n(it matters not which) soon becoming general and proportionate, (without\nany other agent to work that miracle, but that reciprocal pressure which\nestablishes a perfect symmetry in a bee-hive,) then no alteration could\narise therefrom in the circumstances of the two essential capitalists,\nsince it is perfectly indifferent whether we purchase the labour of\nothers at 5 or 6 _per cent._ dearer, if we sell our own labour in\nproportion:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that in regard to the money proprietor, _whether\ndependant or capitalist_, nothing can result from it but the certainty\nof procuring henceforth and for ever, at the most equitable price,\nthat which he had paid for hitherto according to the rate set on it by\nmonopoly, and often by a scarcity cunningly prepared and managed:\n\nIf it were acknowledged, that _as to the external interests of the\nState_, no other effect can result from the general repeal of those\npretended very wise institutions, but the facilitating of all the\nbranches of foreign correspondence, the opening of new channels of\nconsumption, the encouragement of all kinds of production, of which\nconsumption is the very soul, and the power of obtaining every where, at\nthe most equitable prices, _by means of competition_, the most equitable\nshare we have a right to expect in those gifts which nature, in all\nprobability, has not bestowed on any part of the world, to confine them\nto that particular spot:\n\nIf all the foregoing points, I say, were acknowledged, it would be a hard\nmatter to conceive that there is, not only in _Europe_, but all over the\nglobe, any other enemy to destroy but Monopoly, or any other interest to\nfavour but Labour.\n\n\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n_The judgement of the Public, on the ideas thrown out in this Essay,\nwill determine the fate of some others, which are nothing else but the\nconsequences or developement of these._\n\n\n\n\nPR\u00c9FACE _DE L\u2019\u00c9DITEUR_.\n\n\nCe n\u2019est point un _Trait\u00e9_ que l\u2019Auteur annonce: ce n\u2019est rien de plus\nque des _Consid\u00e9rations sur le M\u00e9chanisme des Soci\u00e9t\u00e9s_. Un pareil titre\nn\u2019astreint point \u00e0 un plan r\u00e9gulier, & sauve m\u00eame le risque de pr\u00e9parer\nles Lecteurs \u00e0 un encha\u00eenement d\u2019id\u00e9es qui n\u2019\u00e9chappera point \u00e0 leur\nsagacit\u00e9, s\u2019il existe; & sur lequel on ne les abuseroit point, s\u2019il\nn\u2019existe pas. Mais dans un tableau consacr\u00e9 au monde comme \u00e0 la patrie,\naux peuples comme \u00e0 leurs ma\u00eetres, il falloit que l\u2019objet saillant,\nl\u2019objet sur lequel on dirigeoit leur premi\u00e8re attention, f\u00fbt d\u2019un int\u00e9r\u00eat\nassez g\u00e9n\u00e9ral pour les engager progressivement \u00e0 l\u2019examen de tous ceux\nde ses d\u00e9tails qui m\u00e9ritent d\u2019\u00eatre approfondis, & dont les rapports sont\nm\u00e9connus ou mal jug\u00e9s.\n\nL\u2019objet qui fixe aujourd\u2019hui l\u2019attention de tous les \u00c9tats de\nl\u2019_Europe_, tous d\u00e9biteurs & cr\u00e9anciers, c\u2019est la dette publique de\nl\u2019_Angleterre_, & les mesures que va prendre \u00e0 ce sujet, l\u2019Assembl\u00e9e\ndu monde la plus \u00e9clair\u00e9e sur les int\u00e9r\u00eats du peuple, la plus jalouse\nde ses droits, & la plus libre du moins dans ses d\u00e9bats. C\u2019est par\nl\u2019examen de cette formidable dette, & de son influence sur la richesse\nde l\u2019\u00c9tat & l\u2019aisance du peuple, que l\u2019Auteur ose commencer. Mais avant\nd\u2019en expliquer le m\u00e9chanisme, dont le r\u00e9sultat pr\u00e9sente des id\u00e9es trop\ncontraires \u00e0 l\u2019opinion g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, l\u2019Auteur t\u00e0che de familiariser peu \u00e0\npeu ses Lecteurs avec la sienne, par des _R\u00e9flexions g\u00e9n\u00e9rales sur la\nsituation actuelle de l\u2019~Angleterre~_; ces r\u00e9flexions ne lui permettant\npas de douter, que la nation ne f\u00fbt en 1779, malgr\u00e9 la dette nationale,\nplus riche qu\u2019au commencement du si\u00e8cle, du quadruple, ou du double\nseulement, suivant le calcul de population auquel on sera le plus\nattach\u00e9.\u2014On voit que l\u2019Auteur, relativement \u00e0 son plan, n\u2019attache aucune\nimportance \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence des opinions sur cet article.\n\n_Une vue plus particuli\u00e8re du sujet_, pr\u00e9sente \u00e0 l\u2019Auteur de nouvelles\nraisons qui lui paroissent capables de tranquilliser le cr\u00e9ancier le\nplus inquiet.\u2014Ce n\u2019est \u00e0 la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 que par le moyen _des \u00e9pargnes_\nfaites & \u00e0 faire journellement sur 8 sols, portion exacte qui revient\n\u00e0 chaque individu dans le revenu g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, qu\u2019on a pu parvenir \u00e0\nl\u2019opulence, & qu\u2019il est possible de s\u2019y maintenir; mais l\u2019Auteur cherche\n_les \u00e9pargnes_ qu\u2019on ne peut m\u00e9conno\u00eetre dans l\u2019agriculture & dans\nl\u2019industrie: il trouve que celles de l\u2019agriculture ont suffi depuis un\nsi\u00e8cle, non-seulement pour satisfaire aux charges publiques, mais encore\npour doubler le revenu territorial; & il d\u00e9taille ensuite une quantit\u00e9\nd\u2019objets, faciles \u00e0 v\u00e9rifier, qui semblent d\u00e9montrer le m\u00eame progr\u00e8s dans\nl\u2019industrie.\n\nIci l\u2019Auteur commence \u00e0 se croire assez ferme sur son terrein, pour\nconvenir qu\u2019il ne voit rien dans la situation actuelle de l\u2019_Angleterre_\nqui puisse justifier l\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019une banqueroute, quoique les papiers\npublics de cette nation en insinuent tr\u00e8s-souvent la commodit\u00e9. L\u2019Auteur\ns\u2019oublie m\u00eame jusqu\u2019\u00e0 examiner s\u00e9rieusement, _s\u2019il seroit avantageux de\nrembourser ou de ne pas rembourser, m\u00eame dans la supposition que les\n238 millions emprunt\u00e9s & disparus, reparo\u00eetroient dans les coffres de\nl\u2019\u00c9chiquier_.\n\nApr\u00e8s avoir pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 la question sous plusieurs points de vue, l\u2019Auteur\nn\u2019h\u00e9site point \u00e0 se d\u00e9cider pour la n\u00e9gative, & t\u00e2che ensuite de prouver\nqu\u2019une _Th\u00e9saurisation_ ant\u00e9rieure qui e\u00fbt mis la Nation en \u00e9tat de\nsoutenir la derni\u00e8re guerre sans imposer aucune taxe additionelle, auroit\nfait beaucoup plus de mal que les nouvelles taxes n\u2019ont \u00e9t\u00e9 capables d\u2019en\nfaire.\n\nL\u2019Auteur devenu plus hardi, parce que personne ne le contredit\nlorsqu\u2019il est seul (& en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 il est seul bien souvent), entreprend\nde r\u00e9concilier le genre humain avec les taxes, au moyen d\u2019une premi\u00e8re\nd\u00e9composition de l\u2019imp\u00f4t; il abandonne \u00e0 la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 une de ses parties\ncomme on\u00e9reuse, (il est f\u00e2cheux r\u00e9ellement qu\u2019elle soit indispensable,\nheureusement c\u2019est la moindre;) mais il d\u00e9fend hautement l\u2019autre partie,\ncomme une ressource tr\u00e8s-pr\u00e9cieuse pour cette portion du peuple qui\nm\u00e9rite le plus de captiver l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat du Gouvernement.\n\nMalgr\u00e9 toutes les pr\u00e9cautions que l\u2019Auteur a prises jusqu\u2019ici pour ne\npas effaroucher ses Lecteurs, il lui reste un tel pas \u00e0 franchir, qu\u2019on\nle voit presque \u00e0 genoux pour supplier qu\u2019on lui permette de le franchir\nen vingt fois s\u2019il n\u2019y r\u00e9ussit pas en dix; c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire, qu\u2019il desire\nbeaucoup que son Ouvrage ne soit pas condamn\u00e9 _d\u00e9finitivement_, avant\nd\u2019avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 lu jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la fin; en effet il n\u2019est pas impossible qu\u2019une\nproposition d\u00e9tach\u00e9e, dont le ridicule est frappant \u00e0 l\u2019exposition,\ndevienne cependant tr\u00e8s-raisonnable lorsqu\u2019elle aura \u00e9t\u00e9 successivement\nrapproch\u00e9e de toutes celles qui doivent la suivre.\u2014\n\nUn Editeur doit encore plus au Public qu\u2019\u00e0 un Ouvrage auquel il seroit\nm\u00eame assez flatt\u00e9 de procurer une petite fortune; je crois donc \u00eatre\noblig\u00e9 (_in foro conscienti\u00e6_) de pr\u00e9venir que ce n\u2019est qu\u2019apr\u00e8s avoir\nparcouru cinquante & quelques pages qu\u2019on soup\u00e7onne pourquoi l\u2019Auteur\nn\u2019a pas annonc\u00e9 d\u00e8s la premi\u00e8re, les singularit\u00e9s qu\u2019il se proposoit\ninsidieusement d\u2019\u00e9tablir pied \u00e0 pied dans sa brochure: mais enfin on peut\nalors pressentir ce qu\u2019on doit attendre d\u2019un homme qui vient de conter\n_que les taxes ne sont qu\u2019un petit mal, que la Th\u00e9saurisation en seroit\nun tr\u00e8s-grand, qu\u2019un remboursement est au moins inutile_,\u2014& qui aussi-t\u00f4t\nannonce modestement qu\u2019il pourra bien, _par la suite_, lui \u00e9chapper\nquelques bizarreries,\u2014comme s\u2019il pouvoit y en avoir de plus complettes\nque les trois propositions dont je viens de rendre compte.\n\nCependant il ne faut pas \u00eatre trop s\u00e9v\u00e8re;\u2014le Lecteur a-t-il \u00e9t\u00e9\nseulement amus\u00e9 par le coin du Tableau jusques-l\u00e0 d\u00e9couvert?\u2014qu\u2019il\nse pr\u00eate \u00e0 la petite manie de l\u2019Auteur; on renonceroit \u00e0 montrer des\ncuriosit\u00e9s, si l\u2019on n\u2019avoit pas la libert\u00e9 de lever le rideau \u00e0 sa\nfantaisie, si l\u2019on n\u2019avoit pas le droit de ne montrer, \u00e0 chaque annonce,\nque la petite partie de la curiosit\u00e9, sur laquelle on veut fixer pour le\nmoment les yeux du Spectateur:\u2014\n\nMais si le Lecteur n\u2019a pas encore observ\u00e9 la moindre variation dans\nle compas malgr\u00e9 la diff\u00e9rence des positions; s\u2019il n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 un peu\n\u00e9branl\u00e9 par les raisonnemens dont on l\u2019aura berc\u00e9 jusqu\u2019alors,\u2014qu\u2019il\njette la brochure au feu; car l\u2019Auteur, dont je ne pr\u00e9tends point imiter\nla circonspection, ou adopter les craintes, ou justifier l\u2019audace,\nou partager le d\u00e9lit, n\u2019entreprend rien moins que d\u2019engager _toute\nl\u2019Europe_, (toute Europe!) \u00e0 examiner:\n\n1\u1d52.\n\nS\u2019il seroit possible qu\u2019il en cout\u00e2t \u00e0 l\u2019_Angleterre_ au-del\u00e0 de 5\nmillions sterling, _une fois trouv\u00e9s_, pour assurer, _\u00e0 perp\u00e9tuit\u00e9_, de\nla fa\u00e7on la plus solide, le paiement de l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat d\u2019une dette de 238\nmillions, cet int\u00e9r\u00eat fix\u00e9 \u00e0 9 millions m\u00eame monnoie.\n\n2\u1d52.\n\nS\u2019il n\u2019y a pas sans qu\u2019on l\u2019imagine, dans le Syst\u00eame de Finance de\nl\u2019_Angleterre_, quelquesunes des imperfections si bien observ\u00e9es, si\njustement, si am\u00e8rement critiqu\u00e9es dans celui de la _France_; & si un\nremboursement national n\u2019est pas le plus facile de tous les jeux avec\nlesquels un Ministre de Finance peut amuser la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9, sans la servir.\n\n3\u1d52.\n\nSi la possibilit\u00e9 d\u2019une balance de commerce toujours favorable, n\u2019est\npas aussi douteuse que la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d\u2019une banqueroute, & l\u2019avantage d\u2019un\nremboursement.\n\n4\u1d52.\n\nSi l\u2019\u00e9quilibre en tout & par tout, n\u2019est pas indispensable; & si,\npour maintenir ou r\u00e9tablir cet \u00e9quilibre, il faut de grands efforts\nd\u2019imagination de la part de ceux qui croient tenir la balance.\n\n5\u1d52.\n\nSi la diff\u00e9rence des prix est quelque chose ou rien; & s\u2019il a fallu\nen _France_ au-del\u00e0 de 66 millions tournois, _une fois trouv\u00e9s_, pour\nassurer, _\u00e0 jamais_, l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 5 p. cent d\u2019un emprunt national de 1500\nmillions.\n\n6\u1d52.\n\nSi le monstre d\u2019une concurrence en fait de commerce, pr\u00e9tendue invincible\ngraces \u00e0 la l\u00e9g\u00e8ret\u00e9 des prix dont elle seroit arm\u00e9e, n\u2019est pas aussi\nfantastique que celui d\u2019une balance toujours favorable.\n\n7\u1d52.\n\nSi le _pr\u00e6mium_ d\u2019exportation le plus pardonnable, est autre chose qu\u2019une\ninjustice devenue n\u00e9cessaire pour en balancer une infinit\u00e9 d\u2019autres.\n\n8\u1d52.\n\nS\u2019il ne r\u00e9sulte pas du r\u00e9tablissement toujours infaillible & purement\nm\u00e9chanique de l\u2019\u00e9quilibre dans tous les prix, que les taxes sont d\u2019une\ninnocence absolue en elles-m\u00eames;\u2014s\u2019il est au-del\u00e0 d\u2019une esp\u00e8ce de\ntaxation, qui n\u2019augmente la masse g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des prix que du montant pr\u00e9cis\nde la taxe;\u2014si toutes les autres n\u2019en triplent pas l\u2019effet;\u2014si la plus\npernicieuse, _apr\u00e8s la capitation_, n\u2019est pas celle _du luxe_;\u2014& si du\nmoment o\u00f9 toutes les taxes _bonnes ou mauvaises_, ont r\u00e9agi sur tout, le\nfardeau de la dette nationale n\u2019est pas \u00e9videmment NUL dans tous les pays.\n\n9\u1d52.\n\nSi le cr\u00e9dit n\u2019est pas, _apr\u00e8s le Monopole_, l\u2019effet de la richesse qui\nench\u00e9risse le plus tous les produits de la terre & de l\u2019industrie.\n\n10\u1d52.\n\nSi tel pays o\u00f9 la contrebande fut d\u00e9fendue sous peine des gal\u00e8res, ne\ndoit pas _\u00e0 la contrebande_ un cinqui\u00e8me des produits de son agriculture,\ndont le commerce profite avec aussi peu de scrupule que s\u2019il n\u2019e\u00fbt pas\nsollicit\u00e9 la loi abominable contre les contrebandiers.\n\n11\u1d52.\n\nSi l\u2019absurdit\u00e9 de l\u2019id\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale sur le moyen le plus propre pour\n\u00e9tablir une concurrence avantageuse en fait de commerce, n\u2019est pas\nd\u00e9montr\u00e9e par l\u2019Histoire d\u2019une r\u00e9volution singuli\u00e8re en _France_;\nr\u00e9volution aussi peu douteuse que les deux guerres de 1755 & de 1779.\n\n12\u1d52.\n\nSi l\u2019impossibilit\u00e9 des deux balances pr\u00e9tendues par la _France_ &\npar l\u2019_Angleterre_, n\u2019est pas prouv\u00e9e par les faits all\u00e9gu\u00e9s dans\nles deux pays pour \u00e9tablir l\u2019existence de ces deux monstres;\u2014si\ncette impossibilit\u00e9 n\u2019est pas d\u00e9montr\u00e9e par d\u2019autres faits aussi peu\n\u00e9quivoques;\u2014& s\u2019il n\u2019est pas de l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat de l\u2019_Angleterre_ & de la\n_France_, d\u2019abjurer au plus t\u00f4t l\u2019idole, & de renoncer authentiquement \u00e0\nses \u0153uvres comme \u00e0 ses pompes.\n\n13\u1d52.\n\nSi les exportations & importations ne sont pas un jeu aussi innocent que\ncelui de la paume; un jeu n\u00e9anmoins dont tous les Gouvernemens pourroient\ntirer un grand parti, tous les sujets un grand avantage, & tous les \u00c9tats\nun accroissement de force & de richesse.\n\n14\u1d52.\n\nSi la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 des exportations de l\u2019_Angleterre_ en diff\u00e9rens\np\u00e9riodes, consid\u00e9r\u00e9e relativement \u00e0 la correspondance \u00e9trang\u00e8re, ne\nd\u00e9montre pas une esp\u00e8ce d\u2019\u00e9lectricit\u00e9 dont on n\u2019avoit pas encore l\u2019id\u00e9e,\n& qui n\u2019est pas indigne d\u2019amuser le loisir des plus grands Politiques.\n\n15\u1d52.\n\nSi le badinage du luxe n\u2019est pas aussi innocent que le jeu des\nexportations & importations; & combien le plus fastueux, le plus\nprodigue, le plus sensuel de tous les Princes, consomme au-del\u00e0 du plus\navare de ses sujets.\n\n16\u1d52.\n\nCombien, en n\u00e9gligeant les sols & les deniers, l\u2019_Angleterre_ a perdu\nen perdant ce qu\u2019on appelloit son bras droit; & combien, en n\u00e9gligeant\nles sols & les deniers, toute l\u2019_Europe_ perdroit si elle perdoit la\nsouverainet\u00e9 des deux _Am\u00e9riques_.\n\n17\u1d52.\n\nSi tout ce qui avoit paru \u00e0 l\u2019Auteur fond\u00e9 en raison & en justice,\nne se trouve pas finalement, en d\u00e9pit de la conjuration g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de\ntous les Peuples & de tous les Ministres, conforme aux faits les plus\ndouteux;\u2014& s\u2019il ne r\u00e9sulte pas de la r\u00e9union des faits & des raisons,\nque l\u2019assertion de l\u2019Auteur la plus int\u00e9ressante pour l\u2019humanit\u00e9,\nc\u2019est-\u00e0-dire pour tous les Princes comme pour tous les Peuples, est de la\nv\u00e9rit\u00e9 la plus incontestable, & la plus facile \u00e0 mettre \u00e0 la port\u00e9e de\ntous les int\u00e9ress\u00e9s.\n\nJ\u2019irai plus loin quoique Editeur. Je supposerai qu\u2019il r\u00e9sult\u00e2t aussi\nde cette r\u00e9union de raisons & de faits, que les moyens qu\u2019on a crus\njusqu\u2019ici les plus propres \u00e0 soulager le Peuple, \u00e9toient les plus\ninfaillibles pour le vexer; qu\u2019est ce que cela fait au Peuple pourvu\nqu\u2019on ne le vexe plus? Le pass\u00e9 est-il autre chose qu\u2019un songe?\n\nJe supposerai encore qu\u2019il en r\u00e9sult\u00e2t qu\u2019on n\u2019a jamais travaill\u00e9 plus\nsolidement \u00e0 diminuer les revenus du Prince, que lorsqu\u2019on s\u2019est flatt\u00e9\nde les augmenter; qu\u2019est-ce que cela fait au Prince, pourvu qu\u2019il ne\nsoit plus possible de se m\u00e9prendre sur les vrais moyens de l\u2019enrichir?\nN\u2019est-ce pas de l\u2019avenir sur tout, qu\u2019un grand Prince doit s\u2019occuper?\n\nJe supposerai encore qu\u2019il en r\u00e9sult\u00e2t qu\u2019on a eu grand tort de\ns\u2019imaginer qu\u2019il falloit diminuer le revenu du Peuple pour augmenter\ncelui du Prince; qu\u2019est-ce que cela fait au Prince & au Peuple, pourvu\nqu\u2019ils soient l\u2019un & l\u2019autre bien convaincus qu\u2019il n\u2019est pas possible\nd\u2019enrichir l\u2019un, sans enrichir l\u2019autre de la m\u00eame mani\u00e8re, & dans la m\u00eame\nproportion?\n\nJe supposerai encore qu\u2019il en r\u00e9sult\u00e2t \u00e9videmment qu\u2019il n\u2019y a pas eu\njusqu\u2019ici dans les finances d\u2019aucun pays, un seul principe, une seule\nid\u00e9e qui en m\u00e9rit\u00e2t le nom; qu\u2019est-ce que cela fait aux Ministres qui\ndirigent aujourd\u2019hui les finances? Le pass\u00e9 est-il \u00e0 leurs ordres? Et\nn\u2019est-ce pas dans la rectification des abus d\u00e9couverts, que consiste la\nvraie gloire d\u2019un Minist\u00e8re?\n\nJe supposerai m\u00eame, pour combler la mesure, qu\u2019il en r\u00e9sult\u00e2t pour un\ntr\u00e8s-simple individu _Am\u00e9ricain_, une petite branche de cet arbuste\n_Europ\u00e9en_ qu\u2019on appelle laurier femelle; qu\u2019est-ce que cela fait \u00e0 tous\nles Ministres, \u00e0 tous les Peuples, \u00e0 tous les Princes de l\u2019_Europe_?\nL\u2019_Am\u00e9rique_ consommera-t-elle moins de marchandises _Europ\u00e9ennes_, &\nproduira-t-elle moins d\u2019or & d\u2019argent, pour avoir produit une id\u00e9e?\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] The 18 millions sterling in circulation, as calculated in 1688, by\nDr. _Davenant_, were, in 1711, brought down to 12 millions, probably as\nwe reduce now to 20 or 25, the 40 millions and upwards which might be\nsupposed in _England_, were we to confine ourselves to the calculation\nof the coin struck in the present reign, and of the old pieces preserved\non account of their weight being unimpaired. The sequel will shew, that\nit is next to an impossibility for a country, tolerably governed, to\npreserve, for any length of time, more or less money than its wants\nrequire.\n\n[2] I have mentioned the fatal tree, as a consequence of the miseries\nattending war. This is more sensibly felt in _England_ than any where\nelse, for reasons obvious to every one. During the first years that\nimmediately follow a peace, a four-fold number of wretches, to what\nare executed at other times, are brought to the gallows. It is with\nmuch ado that a man returns within the sphere of the confined and daily\noccupations of the handicrafts or husbandmen, when he has for some years\nrioted in that licentiousness permitted, in a manner, to soldiers and\nsailors, in every thing that does not concern their respective service.\n\n[3] This idea is the more to be attended to, as, supposing it were\npossible that an increase of coin, within the nation, should enhance\nthe produce of industry alone, the landed proprietors would certainly\nbe obliged to petition for an act of parliament, _prohibiting the\nimportation of bullion, for fear it should be turned into coin_; just\nas they would be obliged to pray for a tax on the productions of the\nearth, if none but the taxed articles were to increase in price.\u2014We now\npetition against taxes; we should then pray to be taxed. This would be\nno bad subject for a Comedy, if attempted by a writer who would handle\nit properly. I hope the labouring man would be allotted a very bustling\npart; that is, he would engross the best wishes of all good men, and\ncommand the attention of all those who do not think themselves entitled\nto that appellation.\n\n[4] Since my writing the above I have seen the account-book (_Bilan_) of\nanother nation; I shall notice it in its proper place.\n\n[5] Under the idea of labour, I comprise all kinds of capitals necessary\nto keep in action the labouring man; a stock, or capital, is but an\naccumulation of savings, made from former labours, whether it represents\nthe savings of a certain number of years, in regard to one man, or those\nof some centuries, in regard to the nation or some privileged individuals.\n\n[6] One of the most respectable _English_ writers has been charged with\nhaving entirely given up the _American_ cause, which he had hitherto\nso strenuously supported; in my opinion it is a mistake. It was not to\nthe _Americans_ that the Doctor was attached, it was to certain maxims,\nplain but fertile, by which they seemed to have been directed, and\nwhich the said author, establishes and recommends as the only guides\nfor all Princes and Nations, to lead them to that point of prosperity\nthe limits of which can be prescribed by Nature alone; the _Americans_\nmost probably will return to those maxims, and I presume to think, that\nthey will instantly be restored to the favour of that worthy Divine; my\nopinions so nearly approach to those of that honest man on every point\nthat truly concerns society, that I wish either to convert him, or to\nbe perverted by him, with regard to the reimbursement. I must confess,\nthat if the ideas which are the ground-work of my principles, be false,\nthe error is mine alone; if I am right, the mistake of the Doctor, (like\nthe imperfections in _Shakespeare_), is the fault of his age, not of\nhimself. I shall further add, that the reimbursement, according to the\nprinciples I have laid down, is not a measure by any means material to\nthe State; it is only a trifling injustice done to very little purpose,\nand not even suspected by those who sustain it, a _je ne sais quoi_\ngiving to one a little credit and a little uneasiness to others, keeping\n_the bulls and bears_ in spirits and the writers of paragraphs in full\nemploy, but luckily productive of a light and transitory sensation only,\nand even that in a small part of the machine: so little is reimbursed\nat a time! so soon is one tired of reimbursing! Presently, the only\nessential object, the price of every thing shapes itself so well by the\ncircumstances attending the reimbursement, that I should not hesitate\nto ascribe the ordinary, the infallible reparation of all evil, to the\ncredit of one sole principle of all good, were it not my invariable maxim\n(as it is the Doctor\u2019s and his friend _M. Turgot_\u2019s) not to scandalise\neven those who do not believe in God.\n\nThere is a prejudice much more unaccountable in _England_, in the\nproud _England_, than the whim of a national reimbursement; it is that\nprejudice which all the _hired_ writers, _pro_ and _con_, endeavour\nto propagate from age to age in all countries, a prejudice, on the\ndestroying of which every unhired writer can never be too intent, that\nprejudice stating, that _the prosperity of a State depends on one single\nindividual_. Where is that _Ph\u0153nix_ to be found? There are always two\npretenders at least, who cry at once, I AM THE MAN, and a thousand voices\nexclaiming together, HE IS THE MAN. _The prosperity of a State, be its\nextent what it may, solely depends on its agriculture, its industry, its\nknowledge, and on that degree of liberty with which those three objects\ncan exert themselves in every way._ This is the grand truth which ought\nto be impressed on every mind.\u2e3aLet one great man die in a country where\ngreat men are appreciated\u2e3astamp on the ground, and ten such men will\nstart up: many more will start up when every body, without respect either\nto face or mask, is at liberty to stand as a candidate.\n\n[7] Let the question on this very point be asked of any one, who can\nremember, and compare. I except no article whatsoever of industry, which\nis brought to perfection.\n\n[8] It is truly farcical to hear and _see_ the deep-fetched sigh of a\ntradesman, when he is reminded by a purchaser, that the subject matter of\nthe bargain is dearer than it used to be: \u201cAlas! Sir, (says he) this very\narticle is taxed one shilling; and, Sir, I say nothing of that cursed\nshop-tax.\u201d But _why_? If the purchaser has some kind of labour, no matter\nwhat, and no matter how, to dispose of, it is evident that, as soon as\nthe sigh will have gone round, the tax will be paid, _without any expence\nbut that of some thousands of sighs exchanged by the community at large_.\n\n[9] I must confess I wish also that a little time could be spared to\nexamine whether all kinds of taxes, already devised or to be devised,\nalready established or to be established, on any other object but\n_consumption_, whatever may be the appellation with which they may be\nhonoured or disgraced, from the land-tax down to the shop-tax, _are not\nin fact so many poll-taxes_:\u2014that is to say, I wish they would be pleased\nto examine, whether that man whose _hand_ is obliged, _under pain of\ndistress_, to give at such a day such a sum, can, upon due recollection,\ndisguise to himself that his _head_ is as really taxed, as if the subsidy\nto be paid was called _a poll-tax_, or _la taille_. If I am not mistaken,\nthe case is this: the shopkeeper feels that he ought not to pay a tax\nupon his shop; he pays it and cries out like an eagle; he is right: the\nland proprietor does not know that he ought not to pay a tax upon his\nland; he pays it and says nothing; he is wrong: the Minister wanted\nmoney; he thought that nothing remained untaxed; he suspected that the\nland proprietor would at last cry out as loud as the shopkeeper, if the\nland-tax was increased; he taxed the shops: a shop, in truth, does not\nappear (very evidently at least) more sacred than the land upon which it\nis erected.\u2014It is not at all impossible, but that in some few years all\nthese misunderstandings will be talked of with as little reverence as\nwitchcraft; but till then, the good mother Nature must work underhand, as\nshe ever did, and probably ever will.\n\n[10] In the Political Arithmetic of Mr. _Young_, may be seen the\naccounts, year by year, whence I have drawn the inferences here submitted\nto the Reader. It is but a few days ago that I thought of comparing with\nmy own ideas the result of the whole of those accounts.\n\n[11] It is a very good idea, according to the Navigation-Act, to\nrestrain, as much as possible, the _English_ sugar-colonies, _which their\nstrongest interests attach for ever to England_,\u2014to restrain, I say,\nthose sugar-colonies, in order to enlarge the faculties of some relics\nof timber, tar, and wheat-colonies, _which their strongest interests\nwill detach from ~England~ as soon as_ they shall be strong enough to\nmake the best of their timber, tar, and wheat. It is said in _England_,\nthat the sugar-cane planters are so immensely rich, that they can well\nafford to pay 20 _per cent._ dearer to their _dutiful_ brethren, for\nwhat they could purchase 20 _per cent._ cheaper from their _revolted_\nones.\u2014A sugar-cane planter, with a clear revenue of one or ten thousand\npounds sterling in sugar, is neither more nor less rich than a freeholder\nin _Great-Britain_, with a clear revenue of one or ten thousand pounds\nsterling in wheat or grass; the one, as well as the other, is every day\nrich by the 2 or 4 pounds weight of food he can digest, and by the 6 or\n10 or 15 _lb._ of cloaths he can wear; the one, as well as the other,\npicks out those 10 or 20 pounds from the materials that best suit his\ntaste or fancy.\u2014To the shame of thy power, \u00f4 Opulence, here thou must\nstop! _huc usque venies_.\u2014Such is the truth, no greater is the truth, no\nless trivial is the truth, before which that _great globe itself_, that\nimmense and _baseless fabric_ of premiums, prohibitions, restrictions,\nand so many other financiering _visions_\u2014_shall dissolve, and leave not\na wreck behind_!","title":"Thoughts on the mechanism of societies","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":89545}