| OCR Text |
Show OF 'l'HE REN1' OF LAND. [ CH. III. of late years, there is little doubt that a considerable part of this increase of 'vealth had been derived from the capital of the tenant \Vho held the farn1 previous to the renewal of the lease, although such increase of vvealth to the state could not have operated as a 1notive of interest to the individual so ernploying his stock. If then during the \var no obstacles had occurred to the in1portation of foreign corn, and the profits of agriculture had in consequence been only ten per cent. \vhile the profits of con11nerce and n1anufactures were t\velve, the capital of the country 'vould of course have flo\vecl to,i\rards con1n1erce and n1anufactures; and 1neasuring the interest of the state, as usual, by the interest of individuals, this 'vould have been a n1ore advantageous direction of it, in the proportion of t\ve 1 ve to ten. But, if the vie\v of the subject just taken be correct, in-. stead of a beneficial direction of it to a profit of t\,velve per cent. fro1n a profit of ten per cent. as n1easured by the interests of the individuals concerned, it n1ight have been a disadvantageous direction of it to a profit of only t\vel ve per cent. fron1 a profit of fourteen per cent. as 1neasured by the interest of the state. It is obvious therefore that the natural* restrictions upon the importation of foreign corn during the war, by forcibly raising the profits of don1estic * It is of great importance always to recollect that the high price of corn from 1798 to 1814 was occasioned by the war and the seasons,-not by corn-laws; and that a country with open ports ~ay be subjected to very great alternations of price in war and m peace. SEC. IX.] OF THE RENT OF LAND. cultivation, n1ay have directed the capital of the country into a channel n1ore advantageous than that into which it would other,vise have flo\vecl, and instead of irnpeding the progress of \vealth and population, as at first one should certainly have expected, may have decidedly and essentially promoted it. .i\.nd this, in fact, such restrictions not only may, but 1nust do, 'vhenever the den1and for corn grown at hon1e is such, that the profits of capitals employed on the ne\v lands taken into cultivation, joined to the rents vvhich they generate, form together greater returns in proportion to the stock etnployed, than the returns of the capitals engaged in con1n1erce and n1an ufactures ; because, in this case, though foreign corn 1night be purchased, "\Vithout these restrictions, at a cheaper money price than that at which it could be raised at hon1e, it 'vould not be purchased at so s1nall an expense of capital- and labour,* vvhich is the true proof of the advantageous employn1ent of stock. But if the progress of vvealth has been rather accelerated than retarded by such restrictions upon· * If restrictions upon importation necessarily . increased the quantity of labour and capital required to obtain corn, th.ey could not of course be defended for a moment, with a view to wealth and productive power. But if by directing capital to the land they occasion permanent improvements, the whole question is changed. Permanent improvements in agriculture arc like the acquisition of additional land. Even however, if they had no effect of this kind, they might be desirable on other gronnds yet more important. Late events must make us contemplate with uo small alarm a great increase in the pn;portion of our man ufacturing population, both with reference to the happiness and to the liberty of our country. . |
