| OCR Text |
Show ~60 ON 'fiLE I:MIVIEDIATE CAUSES [ CH. VII. gtven to a 1nan having 100,000 l. per annun1, he \vould not lock it up in a chest, but would either increase his expenses by 1 0,000!., employ it hin1self productively, or lend it to some other person for that purpose; in either case demand would be increased, although it would be for different objects. If he increased his expenses, his effectual detnand might probably be fo'r buildings, furniture, or some such enjoyment. If he employed his 10,000 l. productively, his effectual den1and would be for food, clothing, and raw n1aterials, which might set new labourers to \vork. But still it would be demand."* Upon this principle it is supposed that if the richer portion of society were to forego their accuston1ed conveniences and luxuries with a view to accun1tllation, the only effect would be a direc· tion of nearly the "rhole capital of the country to the production of necessaries, \vhich would lead to a great increase of cultivation and population. But, without supposing an entire change in the usual n1otives to acctnnulation, this could ;not possibly happen, The usual motives for accumulation are, I conceive, either the future wealth and enjoyn1ent of the individual \Vho accumulates or of those to \Vhom he means to leave his proper't y. And with these motives it could never answer to the possessor of land to employ nearly all the labour which the soil could support in cultivation; as by so doing he would necessarily destroy his neat rent, and render it impossible for hin1, without subsequently dismissing the greatest part of his \Vorkmen and * Prine. of Polit. Econ. chap. xxi. p. 361. 2d edit. SEC. III.] OF THE PROGRESS OF WEALTH. 361 occasioning the n1ost dreadful distre~s, either to o·ive himself the means of greater enJoyment at a future distant period, or to transmit such 1neans to his posterity. The very definition of fertile land is, land that will support a much greater number of persons than are necessary to cultivate it; and if the landlord, instead of spending this surplus in conveniences, luxuries and unproductive consumers, were to employ it in setting to work on the land as many labourers as his savings could support, it is quite obvious that, instead of being enriched, he would be i1npoverished by such a proceeding, both at first and in future. Nothing could justify such a conduct but a different motive for accumulation; that is, a desire to increase the population-not the Jove of \Vealth a11:d enjoyment ; and till such a change takes place in the passions and propensities of mankind, we may be quite sure that the landlords and cultivators will not go on employing labourers in this way. What then would happen? As soon as the landlords and cultivators found that they could not realize their increasing produce in some way which \vould give them a cotnmand of \Vealth in future, they would cease to employ more labour upon the land ;* and if the business of that part of the so- * !heoretical writers in Political Economy, from the fear of appearmg to attach too much importance to money, have perhaps been too apt to throw it out of their consideration in their reasonings. It is an abstract truth that we want commodities, not tnoney. But, in reality, no commodity for which it is possible to |
