« ForrigeFortsæt »
opinion the absentee landlords would waggoners have to be employed in not, by dwelling in Ireland, raise wao carrying the goods to different parts; ges in it, or in other words, would not shopmen, apprentices, porters, &c. employ more labour in it than they have to be employed in distributing employ at present; and that these them. If the landlord did not live in landlords, in reality, spend their rents Ireland, none of the foreign commo as much in Ireland when they are dities consumed by him would enter absentees, as they would do if they it, and the mass of labour which these should dwell in it constantly. The put in motion would be unemployed Philosopher makes no distinction be in that country. tween a landlord's living in England, In addition, the landlord pays anand his living in France, or China. nually, considerablesums to the coachWhether he dwell in London, or Paris, maker, harness-maker, bricklayer, or Rome, or Pekin, or Timbuctoo, it is carpenter, blacksmith, tailor, shoe precisely the same to Ireland as dwell- maker, painter, upholsterer, &c. &c. ing on his Irish estate, in regard to the greater part of which sums, is in the expenditure of his income. Had reality paid for labour. Were he to this opinion been delivered by some live out of Ireland, this labour would venerable female whose faculties had be in that country without employbeen impaired by a warfare of eighty ment. years with the ills of life, it would : This is not all. If the landlord by doubtlessly have excited only peals of his consumption of commodities give laughter : but it was delivered by an regular employment to one hundred Economist-by a Philosopher--and people in Ireland, who would others therefore we are pretty sure that it wise be idle; these employ various was listened to with wonderful so- people to prepare commodities for lemnity, and believed to be vastly pro- them who would otherwise be idle ; found and unerring.
the latter in their turn employ others The sagacious Economist's reason for who would otherwise be idle ; and the his opinion is in substance, that the money thus continually circulates, landlord's rent is in reality paid in employing additional labour everyIrish produce, and that it makes no
where. If the landlord should remove difference to Ireland whether this pro- from Ireland, not only would the laduce be consumed in it, or out of it. bour which his consumption of comThe landlord, for example, receives modities employs be left idle, but a his rent in oxen ; he exchanges these vast portion of other labour would be for such commodities as he needs, and left idle likewise. : it makes no difference whether he We will illustrate this farther by inakes the exchange in Ireland, or in looking at rents in the gross. Those any other part of the universe. paid to absentee landlords are repre
Our readers are aware that the rent, sented to be enormous in amount, but whether the landlord dwells in Ire- suppose they reach three millions. If land or out of it, is paid by the te- this sum were expended in Ireland, it nants in money: these sell their oxen would employ a vast number of groexactly the same in both cases to pay cers, drapers, mercers, tailors, shoeit. If the landlord dwell in Ireland, makers, &c. &c., who could not now what does he do with the money ? find business in that country. These He expends it in commodities, says the tradesmen would employ a vast nume philosopher. In what commodities ? ber of servants of different kinds, who În coals-wine-malt liquor--cottons could not at present be employed in -Woollens-silks—sugar-tea-cof- Ireland. These masters and servants fee, &c. &c. If the commodities would of themselves employ an imwhich he consumes be produced in mense mass of labour, which, without Ireland, they must employ a large them, could not be employed. quantity of labour in their produc We leave domestics and labourers, tion: if they be all imported, they regularly hired by the landlord, out of must employ a large quantity in, and the question, in order to meet the Phis after their importation, putting pro- losopher on his own ground. duction out of sight. Sailors have to Now, how does Mr M'Culloch get be employed in fetching them; la over this point ? He says, bourers have to be employed in un. lay out your revenue in labour, - you loading the vessels; bargemen and cannot lay it out in commodities; if
you get L.10,000, and lay out L.6000 sell if he were an absentée. They then in labour, you can, of course, lay out pay to him the money. What do the 1.8000 on commodities! You, there merchants do with this produce? To fore, can only employ labour by hi- establish the dotrine of the learned ring labourers; if you buy commodi. Philosopher, they ought to sell it, or ties, you employ no labour. Of course, other Irish produce received in excommodities employ no labour ; the change for it, to the landlord, for the different kinds of tradesmen neither money received of his tenants. They, work themselves, nor keep any work- however, do no such thing. The landmen. Oh, wonderful Economist! what lord can only consume a very cona discovery! After saying what we temptible portion of this and other have quoted, Mr M'Culloch states, Irish produce. He practically goes to “If the money be laid out on commo the merchants, and gives them nearly dities, it will give employment to the the whole of the money in exchange, persons engaged in the production of not for Irish produce, but for wine, ihem.” These counter assertions from coals, timber, silver, iron, tea, sugar, the same lips affect each other very and other articles, the produce of other awkwardly. Looking at so much of nations. For the purchase of these the first as the last does not annihilate, articles, the merchants export the it seems that commodities employ no Irish produce. Nearly the whole of labour in their way from the producer this produce is exported when the to the consumer !
landlord is resident, as well as when The Philosopher asserts that the he is an absentee. merchants who get L.10,000, or any When the landlord is an absentee, other sum, from the agent of an ab- the tenants sell their produce to the sentee landlord in exchange for a bill merchants, and pay the money to the to be remitted to this landlord, “ go agent; the latter takes the money to into the Irish market, and buy exact the merchants, to buy of them, not ly the same amount of commodities the produce of other countries, but a as the landlord would have bought, bill-or, in other words, to employ had he been at home; the only differ them to remit the money to the landence being, that the landlord would lord. They export the Irish produce eat them and wear them in London that it may be sold abroad, and the or Paris, and not in Dublin, or in his value paid to the absentee landlord. house in Ireland.” He asserts further, In both cases the Irish produce is exthat, “if the remittances to absentee ported; in the one, it is merely sent landlords amount to three millions de abroad, that it may return to Ireland year, were the absentee landlords to in another shape,- in the other, it is return home to Ireland, the foreign sent abroad that it may return ‘no trade of Ireland would be diminished more. In the one, it goes abroad only to that amount.” He, moreover, as for a moment, as Irish trading capiserts, that“ in every instance in which tal-in the other, it goes for ever as a a demand arises for a bill of exchange dead loss to Ireland. to remit rents, it is, in point of fact, a The Irish absentee landlords would demand for exportation of Irish pro be so far from diminishing the aggreduce which would not otherwise have gate exports of Ireland by returning existed.”. What an astounding philo to it, that they would increase them. sopher is Mr M‘Culloch !
There would be not only their own We will concede, that the rents of consumption of foreign produce, which the absentees are in reality remitted in would only be procured by the exe Irish produce. Now the same amount portation of Irish produce, but there of rent must be paid, and therefore the would be that of the vast number of tenants must raise the same quantity additional tradesmen, mechanics, arof produce, whether the landlords tizans, and labourers, whom they live in Ireland, or out of it. The te would bring into employment. The nants sell their produce, in both cases, expenditure of the rents, by giving to precisely the same people. Here being to these new consumers, by conthe difference begins.
tinually sending money from band to If the landlord dwell in Ireland, the hand to promote consumption, and by tenants sell the same quantity of pro raising wages and profits, would ina duce to the merchants that they would crease the imports of Ireland beyond
its amount ; in so far as it should in, kind of money for another, which crease the imports beyond its amount, puts no labour in motion; if he dwell it would increase the exports. It might at home, he exchanges his money for diminish the exports of corn and cate foreign produce, which puts a vast tle, but it would add to that of other quantity of labour in motion. articles of Irish produce.
The point is so important, that we The absentee landlords, therefore, will, at the hazard of being tedious, instead of increasing the exports of bestow on it some farther illustration. Ireland, only diminish its imports. If British landlords, possessing Were they to return, the exports would twenty millions of income, were to be at least the same, while they would leave this country, and dwell permą, add, in one way and another, three nently in France, how would this opea millions to the imports, if their rents rate? According to Mr M'Culloch, amount to this sum. Were additional it would add a clear twenty millions foreign produce of this value import, to our exports. If he be right, it ed into Ireland, every one must be must inevitably be true, that this convinced that, in its working up would make a clear addition of twenty and distribution, it would employ a millions to the imports of France. prodigious quantity of additional la. France would receive this sum as a bour.
free gift, without returning any equi. Of course the doctrine, that the valent she would receive it chiefly in merchants, on receiving the money raw produce-she would receive it onfrom the agent,
go into the Irish ly in such things as she would need market, and buy exactly the same and she would receive an increase of amount of commodities as the land, consumption commensurate with it at lord would have bought had he been the same moment. Now, is it not per. at home, the only difference being, fectly clear, that this addition of twen, that the landlord would eat and wear ty millions to the imports of France them abroad, and not at home,” is that this addition of twenty milpreposterous. The question is, Does lions to her annual profits-would en, absenteeism diminish the demand for able her to employ an enormous adlabour? And, therefore, to establish ditional quantity of labour? And if the doctrine, the merchants should it be, is it not equally clear, that the buy, not only the same amount of gain of France would be the loss of commodities, but the very same com England ? The Economists are aware modities that the landlord would have of the dilemma in which they have bought had he been at home. They placed themselves. They manfully as. should buy and export the Irish pro- sert, that as the one country would duce, import foreign produce in ex not lose, the other would not gain : change for it, sell the latter, and pur they might just as truly assert, that chase as many suits of clothes, pairs to take ten thousand pounds from the of shoes, dozens of wine, pounds of income of one man, and add it to that candles, tea, sugar, &c. &c. as the of another, would not make the one landlord consumes they should do poorer, or the other richer. all this before receiving the money, of To support these doctrines, the Ecothe agent--for the bill sold to this nomists maintain, that although the agent they should export the last removal of the landlords would throw named commodities, and not Irish an immense mass of capital and labour produce, or there is manifestly a -an immense number of tradesmen,
difference,” which is fatal to the mechanics, artizans, and labourers doctrine of the Philosopher. The mer out of employment for the moment, chants do nothing of the kind; they these would be permanently employed merely buy in the Irish market such by other trades, which would be procommodities as they would buy if the portionably increased by the absenteen landlord should dwell at home, or jsm of the landlords. We cannot go should not exist. They sell to the along with these people until we have agent a bill; and if they did not do something better from them than the this, they would sell to the landlord, flimsy assertions and assumptions to or other people, foreign produce of the which they cautiously confine them, same value. The difference is this selves. Let us bottom this matter. if the landlord dwell abroad, he mere. If the landlords go abroad the tenants ly, in the Irish market, exchanges one raise the same produce, sell it to the
same people, and pay the rents in mo men, porter, &c. The mercer buys ney to agents. The agents buy bills the goods of the manufacturer, "and upon France with the money, and this employs the capital of the manus send these to the landlords. Now, facturer and throwster, with the weawhat are the commodities sent to vers, dyers, &c. The nobleman's faFrance which these bills represent ? mily employ dressmakers to make up They consist almost wholly of raw the goods. By employing these people, produce.
he enables them to consume many If, in consequence of the absentee silks. Now, if he remove to France, ism of the landlords, France buy a and there consume the same quantity great additional quantity of East In of silks, what is the consequence, assudia silk of us, shall we then import an ming that in both places the raw aradditional quantity of this silk? By ticle is bought of the English import
She will merely buy that er? He deprives the mercer, his capisilk which our manufacturers would tal and shopmen, the manufacturer otherwise buy. She will add nothing and throwster, with their capital and · to our imports of silk. If she buy a workmen, and the dressmakers, who)great quantity of cotton of us, the ly of employment, and of the means of case will be the same: she will buy consuming silks. His rent is raised as what our manufacturers would other before ; but instead of being expended wise buy, but she will not increase our in employing these people and their imports of cotton. If she buy of us capital, it is taken in reality to the ima much wool and iron, the case will still porter for the purchase of that raw silk be the same: we shall not produce to send to France which had pre iously more wool and iron-we shall only sell yielded such employments. The trade these to her instead of our own manu of the importer remains the same, but facturers. The same quantity of these the employment of the others is wholly articles might be brought into the lost, so far as regards the nobleman, if country by the produce of the estates we except the trifling share that may as before; but the demand for the be obtained by carrying the raw silk twenty millions worth of manufac across the water. tured articles would be transferred This is looking at the matter in the from this country to France. The most favourable point of view, and in landlords would employ the French a much more favourable one than we traders, mechanics, &c. instead of the ought. So much capital and labour English ones; and the raw articles being rendered idle, would have the would have to be sent to France, to be most mighty effect in depressing prothere manufactured, instead of this fits and wages. Consumption, general country. The mighty mass of capi- imports, and exports to all parts save tal and labour--the mighty host of France, would be greatly diminished. traders, mechanics, artizans, and la- France, from receiving an additional bourers--which the expenditure of twenty millions' worth of raw produce the twenty millions now employs be to manufacture, retail, and work up, tween the importer or English pro would increase her trade greatly beducer and the consumer, would be de- yond the same amount. prived of employment, while not a We will assume that there are in single trade would receive any addi this country three great and distinct tional capacity to employ them, save classes of producers. The first is comthe carrying trade to France, of which posed of the agriculturists, which inFrance would engross a large portion. cludes the landholders. The landlord So far as regards employment being is as much a producer of corn as his given by the landlords in other trades, tenant; the two are in reality copartnearly the whole of this capital and ners; the one finds the greater part of labour would remain idle for ever. the capital, i. e. the land and build.
To render this still plainer, we willings; the other finds the remainder of assume that a nobleman in this coun the capital, i.e. the stock. The second try expends annually ten thousand class consists of the importers or propounds in silk goods alone; and that ducers of raw produce not agricultural, those who supply him with, and make and the third of the manufacturers. up these goods, serve him only. He Under the term manufacturers, we buys the goods of his mercer, and this here include all who work up and reemploys the mercer, his capital, shop- tail the raw produce of all descriptions.
Now, were our agriculturists to buy his hands, and that, although he may all their manufactures of France, this receive it in solid sovereigns, he cannot would throw out of employment all expend it again so as to employ labour. the manufacturing capital and labour 3. That a nation can have no exof this country which are now,employ- ports, unless its landlords, or others ed in supplying them. If they could whom it supplies with income, dwell not send their own produce to France abroad. in payment, they would exchange it 4. That the imports of a nation ema for the produce of the second class; ploy no labour. this class would not import or produce 5. That the cultivators of land more from this—it would merely send would have no surplus produce to sell, that produce to France which it now if they had no rents to pay. supplies to the manufacturers. This 6. That a nation cannot have any capital and labour would be thrown surplus agricultural produce, if its permanently out of employment; forlandlords be not absentees. from the effect upon profits and 7. That were the absentee landlords wages, our carrying trade would be to return home, each one-Heaven quite as much diminished with other inoderate his appetite !-would devour parts, as it would be increased with all the corn, hogs, and oxen, that his France. Again, if the second and tenants could dispose of. third classes were to buy the whole of 8. That if you take your business their agricultural produce of France, from your English tailor, and give it this would throw the whole of our to a French one, it neither injures the agricultural capital and labour out of one, nor benefits the other. By buyemployment. It would not increase ing all your goods of the Englishman, the trade of these classes, though you do not employ him; by buying France should take manufactures in the whole of the Frenchman, you exchange ; for they would merely send would not employ him. Capital and the goods to France which they now labour cannot be deprived of employsell to our own agriculturists. They ment, and they can never be superwould, in truth, sell considerably less, abundant. because they would have to support 9. That all trades are of equal value gratuitously the idle population. No to a nation ; it makes no difference to thing we think in mathematical de a nation whether it has merely a popumonstration could be clearer than this lation just sufficient to cultivate its -if we import French manufactures soil, or twice the number in addition and corns when our own manufacturers engaged in manufactures and comand agriculturists can abundantly sup merce. A nation can lose manufacture ply us with both, we must employ French after manufacture, and this will do it capital and labour, render idle an equal no injury ; in proportion as its manuamount at least of British capital and factures may decrease, its commerce labour, and greatly diminish the profits and agriculture will increase. If it of the capital and labour of the whole lose the whole of its manufactures, and country. If British landholders go to nearly the whole of its commerce, it expend twenty millions annually in will be able to employ its capital and France, this will only differ from our population just the same in agriculagriculturists as a body buying an ture, although its land shall be prenually of France twenty millions' worth viously fully occupied. If the whole of French manufactured goods, instead of our manufacturers were thrown out of buying to the same amount of our of employment, they could immediateown manufacturers, by its being in- ly be employed in our agriculture, and finitely more injurious to this country. the nation would not lose by it. A If the opinions of the sage Economist nation is as rich, populous, and powerbe true, it must inevitably be true ful, when it has only its agriculture, likewise,
as it is when it has in addition an im1. That rents employ no labour after mense portion of commerce and manuthey are paid to the landlord. The factures. landlord who expends fifty or sixty 10. If all the people of ir dependent thousand per annum, gives no employ- fortune who now dwell in London, ment to labour by such expenditure. were to remove to Liverpool, and were
2. That the rent of a landlord is in to be restricted from procuring a single reality expended before it is put into manufactured article from London,