Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

opinion the absentee landlords would not, by dwelling in Ireland, raise wa ges in it, or in other words, would not employ more labour in it than they employ at present; and that these landlords, in reality, spend their rents as much in Ireland when they are absentees, as they would do if they should dwell in it constantly. The Philosopher makes no distinction between a landlord's living in England, and his living in France, or China. Whether he dwell in London, or Paris, or Rome, or Pekin, or Timbuctoo, it is precisely the same to Ireland as dwelling on his Irish estate, in regard to the expenditure of his income. Had this opinion been delivered by some venerable female whose faculties had been impaired by a warfare of eighty years with the ills of life, it would doubtlessly have excited only peals of laughter: but it was delivered by an Economist-by a Philosopher—and therefore we are pretty sure that it was listened to with wonderful solemnity, and believed to be vastly profound and unerring.

The sagacious Economist's reason for his opinion is in substance, that the landlord's rent is in reality paid in Irish produce, and that it makes no difference to Ireland whether this produce be consumed in it, or out of it. The landlord, for example, receives his rent in oxen; he exchanges these for such commodities as he needs, and it makes no difference whether he makes the exchange in Ireland, or in any other part of the universe.

Our readers are aware that the rent, whether the landlord dwells in Ireland or out of it, is paid by the tenants in money: these sell their oxen exactly the same in both cases to pay it. If the landlord dwell in Ireland, what does he do with the money? He expends it in commodities, says the philosopher. In what commodities? În coals-wine-malt liquor-cottons -woollens-silks-sugar-tea-coffee, &c. &c. If the commodities which he consumes be produced in Ireland, they must employ a large quantity of labour in their production: if they be all imported, they must employ a large quantity in, and after their importation, putting production out of sight. Sailors have to be employed in fetching them; labourers have to be employed in unloading the vessels; bargemen and

waggoners have to be employed in carrying the goods to different parts; shopmen, apprentices, porters, &c. have to be employed in distributing them. If the landlord did not live in Ireland, none of the foreign commodities consumed by him would enter it, and the mass of labour which these put in motion would be unemployed in that country.

In addition, the landlord pays annually, considerable sums to the coachmaker, harness-maker, bricklayer, carpenter, blacksmith, tailor, shoemaker, painter, upholsterer, &c. &c. the greater part of which sums, is in reality paid for labour. Were he to live out of Ireland, this labour would be in that country without employment.

This is not all. If the landlord by his consumption of commodities give regular employment to one hundred people in Ireland, who would other wise be idle; these employ various people to prepare commodities for them who would otherwise be idle; the latter in their turn employ others who would otherwise be idle; and the money thus continually circulates, employing additional labour everywhere. If the landlord should remove from Ireland, not only would the labour which his consumption of commodities employs be left idle, but a vast portion of other labour would be left idle likewise.

We will illustrate this farther by looking at rents in the gross. Those paid to absentee landlords are represented to be enormous in amount, but suppose they reach three millions. If this sum were expended in Ireland, it would employ a vast number of grocers, drapers, mercers, tailors, shoemakers, &c. &c., who could not now find business in that country. These tradesmen would employ a vast number of servants of different kinds, who could not at present be employed in Ireland. These masters and servants would of themselves employ an immense mass of labour, which, without them, could not be employed.

We leave domestics and labourers, regularly hired by the landlord, out of the question, in order to meet the Phi losopher on his own ground.

Now, how does Mr M'Culloch get over this point? He says, "If you lay out your revenue in labour, you cannot lay it out in commodities ; if

you get L.10,000, and lay out L.6000 in labour, you can, of course, lay out L.6000 on commodities! You, there fore, can only employ labour by hi ring labourers; if you buy commodi ties, you employ no labour. Of course, commodities employ no labour; the different kinds of tradesmen neither work themselves, nor keep any workmen. Oh, wonderful Economist! what a discovery! After saying what we have quoted, Mr M'Culloch states, "If the money be laid out on commodities, it will give employment to the persons engaged in the production of them." These counter assertions from the same lips affect each other very awkwardly. Looking at so much of the first as the last does not annihilate, it seems that commodities employ no labour in their way from the producer to the consumer!

The Philosopher asserts that the merchants who get L.10,000, or any other sum, from the agent of an absentee landlord in exchange for a bill to be remitted to this landlord, "go into the Irish market, and buy exactly the same amount of commodities as the landlord would have bought, had he been at home; the only difference being, that the landlord would eat them and wear them in London or Paris, and not in Dublin, or in his house in Ireland." He asserts further, that, "if the remittances to absentee landlords amount to three millions ayear, were the absentee landlords to return home to Ireland, the foreign trade of Ireland would be diminished to that amount." He, moreover, as serts, that "in every instance in which a demand arises for a bill of exchange to remit rents, it is, in point of fact, a demand for exportation of Irish produce which would not otherwise have existed." What an astounding philosopher is Mr M'Culloch !

We will concede, that the rents of the absentees are in reality remitted in Irish produce. Now the same amount of rent must be paid, and therefore the tenants must raise the same quantity of produce, whether the landlords live in Ireland, or out of it. The tenants sell their produce, in both cases, to precisely the same people. Here the difference begins.

If the landlord dwell in Ireland, the tenants sell the same quantity of produce to the merchants that they would

sell if he were an absentee. They then pay to him the money. What do the merchants do with this produce? To establish the dotrine of the learned Philosopher, they ought to sell it, or other Irish produce received in exchange for it, to the landlord, for the money received of his tenants. They, however, do no such thing. The landlord can only consume a very contemptible portion of this and other Irish produce. He practically goes to the merchants, and gives them nearly the whole of the money in exchange, not for Irish produce, but for wine, coals, timber, silver, iron, tea, sugar, and other articles, the produce of other nations. For the purchase of these articles, the merchants export the Irish produce. Nearly the whole of this produce is exported when the landlord is resident, as well as when he is an absentee.

When the landlord is an absentee, the tenants sell their produce to the merchants, and pay the money to the agent; the latter takes the money to the merchants, to buy of them, not the produce of other countries, but a bill-or, in other words, to employ them to remit the money to the landlord. They export the Irish produce that it may be sold abroad, and the value paid to the absentee landlord. In both cases the Irish produce is exported; in the one, it is merely sent abroad, that it may return to Ireland in another shape, in the other, it is sent abroad that it may return `no more. In the one, it goes abroad only for a moment, as Irish trading capital-in the other, it goes for ever as a dead loss to Ireland.

The Irish absentee landlords would be so far from diminishing the aggre gate exports of Ireland by returning to it, that they would increase them. There would be not only their own consumption of foreign produce, which would only be procured by the exportation of Irish produce, but there would be that of the vast number of additional tradesmen, mechanics, artizans, and labourers, whom they would bring into employment. The expenditure of the rents, by giving being to these new consumers, by continually sending money from hand to hand to promote consumption, and by raising wages and profits, would increase the imports of Ireland beyond

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

66

Of course the doctrine, that the merchants, on receiving the money from the agent, go into the Irish market, and buy exactly the same amount of commodities as the landlord would have bought had he been at home, the only difference being, that the landlord would eat and wear them abroad, and not at home," is preposterous. The question is, Does absenteeism diminish the demand for labour? And, therefore, to establish the doctrine, the merchants should buy, not only the same amount of commodities, but the very same commodities that the landlord would have bought had he been at home. They should buy and export the Irish produce, import foreign produce in exchange for it, sell the latter, and purchase as many suits of clothes, pairs of shoes, dozens of wine, pounds of candles, tea, sugar, &c. &c. as the landlord consumes-they should do all this before receiving the money of the agent for the bill sold to this agent they should export the last named commodities, and not Irish produce, or there is manifestly a "difference," which is fatal to the doctrine of the Philosopher. The mer chants do nothing of the kind; they merely buy in the Irish market such commodities as they would buy if the landlord should dwell at home, or should not exist. They sell to the agent a bill; and if they did not do this, they would sell to the landlord, or other people, foreign produce of the same value. The difference is this if the landlord dwell abroad, he merely, in the Irish market, exchanges one

kind of money for another, which puts no labour in motion; if he dwell at home, he exchanges his money for foreign produce, which puts a vast quantity of labour in motion.

The point is so important, that we will, at the hazard of being tedious, bestow on it some farther illustration.

If British landlords, possessing twenty millions of income, were to leave this country, and dwell permanently in France, how would this ope rate? According to Mr M'Culloch, it would add a clear twenty millions to our exports. If he be right, it must inevitably be true, that this would make a clear addition of twenty millions to the imports of France. France would receive this sum as a free gift, without returning any equivalent-she would receive it chiefly in raw produce-she would receive it only in such things as she would need→→ and she would receive an increase of consumption commensurate with it at the same moment. Now, is it not per→ fectly clear, that this addition of twenty millions to the imports of France

that this addition of twenty millions to her annual profits-would enable her to employ an enormous additional quantity of labour? And if it be, is it not equally clear, that the gain of France would be the loss of England? The Economists are aware of the dilemma in which they have placed themselves. They manfully assert, that as the one country would not lose, the other would not gain: they might just as truly assert, that to take ten thousand pounds from the income of one man, and add it to that of another, would not make the one poorer, or the other richer.

To support these doctrines, the Economists maintain, that although the removal of the landlords would throw an immense mass of capital and labour —an immense number of tradesmen, mechanics, artizans, and labourers— out of employment for the moment, these would be permanently employed by other trades, which would be proportionably increased by the absentee→ ism of the landlords. We cannot go along with these people until we have something better from them than the flimsy assertions and assumptions to which they cautiously confine them, selves. Let us bottom this matter. If the landlords go abroad the tenants raise the same produce, sell it to the

same people, and pay the rents in momey to agents. The agents buy bills upon France with the money, and send these to the landlords. Now, what are the commodities sent to France which these bills represent? They consist almost wholly of raw produce.

If, in consequence of the absenteeism of the landlords, France buy a great additional quantity of East India silk of us, shall we then import an additional quantity of this silk? By no means. She will merely buy that silk which our manufacturers would otherwise buy. She will add nothing to our imports of silk. If she buy a great quantity of cotton of us, the case will be the same: she will buy what our manufacturers would otherwise buy, but she will not increase our imports of cotton. If she buy of us much wool and iron, the case will still be the same: we shall not produce more wool and iron-we shall only sell these to her instead of our own manufacturers. The same quantity of these articles might be brought into the country by the produce of the estates as before; but the demand for the twenty millions worth of manufactured articles would be transferred from this country to France. landlords would employ the French traders, mechanics, &c. instead of the English ones; and the raw articles would have to be sent to France, to be there manufactured, instead of this country. The mighty mass of capital and labour-the mighty host of traders, mechanics, artizans, and labourers-which the expenditure of the twenty millions now employs between the importer or English producer and the consumer, would be deprived of employment, while not a single trade would receive any additional capacity to employ them, save the carrying trade to France, of which France would engross a large portion. So far as regards employment being given by the landlords in other trades, nearly the whole of this capital and labour would remain idle for ever.

[ocr errors]

The

To render this still plainer, we will assume that a nobleman in this country expends annually ten thousand pounds in silk goods alone; and that those who supply him with, and make up these goods, serve him only. He buys the goods of his mercer, and this employs the mercer, his capital, shop◄

men, porter, &c. The mercer buys the goods of the manufacturer, and this employs the capital of the manufacturer and throwster, with the weavers, dyers, &c. The nobleman's family employ dressmakers to make up the goods. By employing these people, he enables them to consume many silks. Now, if he remove to France, and there consume the same quantity of silks, what is the consequence, assuming that in both places the raw article is bought of the English importer? He deprives the mercer, his capital and shopmen, the manufacturer and throwster, with their capital and · workmen, and the dressmakers, wholly of employment, and of the means of consuming silks. His rent is raised as before; but instead of being expended in employing these people and their capital, it is taken in reality to the importer for the purchase of that raw silk to send to France which had previously yielded such employments. The trade of the importer remains the same, but the employment of the others is wholly lost, so far as regards the nobleman, if we except the trifling share that may be obtained by carrying the raw silk across the water.

[ocr errors]

This is looking at the matter in the most favourable point of view, and in a much more favourable one than we ought. So much capital and labour being rendered idle, would have the most mighty effect in depressing profits and wages. Consumption, general imports, and exports to all parts save France, would be greatly diminished. France, from receiving an additional twenty millions' worth of raw produce to manufacture, retail, and work up, would increase her trade greatly beyond the same amount.

We will assume that there are in this country three great and distinct classes of producers. The first is composed of the agriculturists, which includes the landholders. The landlord is as much a producer of corn as his tenant; the two are in reality copartners; the one finds the greater part of the capital, i. e. the land and buildings; the other finds the remainder of the capital, i. e. the stock. The second class consists of the importers or producers of raw produce not agricultural, and the third of the manufacturers. Under the term manufacturers, we here include all who work up and retail the raw produce of all descriptions.

Now, were our agriculturists to buy all their manufactures of France, this would throw out of employment all the manufacturing capital and labour of this country which are now employed in supplying them. If they could not send their own produce to France in payment, they would exchange it for the produce of the second class; this class would not import or produce more from this-it would merely send that produce to France which it now supplies to the manufacturers. This capital and labour would be thrown permanently out of employment; for, from the effect upon profits and wages, our carrying trade would be quite as much diminished with other parts, as it would be increased with France. Again, if the second and third classes were to buy the whole of their agricultural produce of France, this would throw the whole of our agricultural capital and labour out of employment. It would not increase the trade of these classes, though France should take manufactures in exchange; for they would merely send the goods to France which they now sell to our own agriculturists. They would, in truth, sell considerably less, because they would have to support gratuitously the idle population. Nothing we think in mathematical demonstration could be clearer than this -if we import French manufactures and corns when our own manufacturers and agriculturists can abundantly sup ply us with both, we must employ French capital and labour, render idle an equal amount at least of British capital and labour, and greatly diminish the profits of the capital and labour of the whole country. If British landholders go to expend twenty millions annually in France, this will only differ from our agriculturists as a body buying annually of France twenty millions' worth of French manufactured goods, instead of buying to the same amount of our own manufacturers, by its being infinitely more injurious to this country. If the opinions of the sage Economist be true, it must inevitably be true likewise,

1. That rents employ no labour after they are paid to the landlord. The landlord who expends fifty or sixty thousand per annum, gives no employment to labour by such expenditure.

2. That the rent of a landlord is in reality expended before it is put into

his hands, and that, although he may receive it in solid sovereigns, he cannot expend it again so as to employ labour. 3. That a nation can have no exports, unless its landlords, or others whom it supplies with income, dwell abroad.

4. That the imports of a nation employ no labour.

5. That the cultivators of land would have no surplus produce to sell, if they had no rents to pay.

6. That a nation cannot have any surplus agricultural produce, if its landlords be not absentees.

7. That were the absentee landlords to return home, each one-Heaven moderate his appetite !-would devour all the corn, hogs, and oxen, that his tenants could dispose of.

8. That if you take your business from your English tailor, and give it to a French one, it neither injures the one, nor benefits the other. By buying all your goods of the Englishman, you do not employ him; by buying the whole of the Frenchman, you would not employ him. Capital and labour cannot be deprived of employment, and they can never be superabundant.

9. That all trades are of equal value to a nation; it makes no difference to a nation whether it has merely a population just sufficient to cultivate its soil, or twice the number in addition engaged in manufactures and commerce. A nation can lose manufacture after manufacture, and this will do it no injury; in proportion as its manufactures may decrease, its commerce and agriculture will increase. If it lose the whole of its manufactures, and nearly the whole of its commerce, it will be able to employ its capital and population just the same in agricul ture, although its land shall be previously fully occupied. If the whole of our manufacturers were thrown out of employment, they could immediately be employed in our agriculture, and the nation would not lose by it. A nation is as rich, populous, and powerful, when it has only its agriculture, as it is when it has in addition an immense portion of commerce and manufactures.

10. If all the people of ir dependent fortune who now dwell in London, were to remove to Liverpool, and were to be restricted from procuring a single manufactured article from London,

« AnteriorContinuar »