An Inquiry into the Permanent Causes of the Decline and Fall of Powerful and Wealthy Nations Part 24

The greatest part of manufacturing wealth, and that, indeed, is divided with a pretty equal hand, is that which goes to the working people, who spend nearly the whole on personal enjoyment.

The quant.i.ty of food that an individual may consume is nearly limited by nature; but the extent of ground on which that food grows depends chiefly on the quality. Thus, for example, it will require nearly ten times the number of acres to maintain one hundred people, who live on animal food, that =sic= it would require to supply the same persons living on vegetables; and, as wealth increases, animal food always obtains the preference. This is evident, from so many proofs, that it scarcely needs ill.u.s.tration. In London, which is the most wealthy part of England, there is more animal food consumed than in any other part, in proportion to the numbers; and, in the country there is always less than in the towns. In the country, and in the towns of England, there is more than in any proportional part of Scotland, or in France, or, indeed, any part of Europe. Expensive as animal food is here, still it bears less proportion to the wages of labour, or the general wealth, than in any other country. In every country, as riches have increased, the consumption of the produce of the earth has augmented.

The Dutch seem to have been well aware of the danger of wealth making the people consume too much. A man in moderate circ.u.mstances loses his credit there, who roasts his meat instead of boiling it. It is reckoned wastefulness, and, as such, is the occasion of confidence being withdrawn from him: it has nearly as bad an effect on a man's credit, as if he were seen coming from a gaming-house.

It will, perhaps, be said, that the parsimony of the Dutch is ridiculous, but we ought not to attribute this merely to parsimony, but to a feeling similar to what we have very properly in England when we see bread wasted. It arises from a feeling of the general want, not of the particular loss, which is totally a different thing. If a man give away imprudently, that loss is to himself, not to the community. As there cannot be givers without receivers it is a change of hands, but there ends the matter. A habit of wasting is another [end of page #144]

thing, it is a general loss, and, therefore, hurts the community at large as well as the individual.

When this augmented consumption takes place, to any great extent, it is the infallible cause of depopulation. How nearly depopulation and decline are connected with each other is very easily and well understood; indeed, it is impossible not to see their intimate connection. {118}

While the exports of a country amount to a great sum, a few millions can be spared for the importation of provisions, without any great difficulty; but the evil may increase imperceptibly, till it becomes impossible to remedy it. The distress that must be occasioned, in such a case, is beyond the power of calculation; for though, in times of plenty, animal food is preferred, whenever there comes any thing like want, that can only be supplied by corn, and there is no wealth sufficient, in any country, to procure that for a number of years, to any great extent. {119}

It is calculated, by the author of the notes on Dr. Smith's Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, that, if the supply of corn were to fall short, one-fourth part, in England, for a number of years running, there would be no means of finding either corn to buy, s.h.i.+ps to transport it, or money to pay for it, without totally deranging the commerce of the country.

In every country there are a number of persons who can afford to

{118} Till within these twelve or fourteen years, England always was able to export some grain; but now the demand for importation is great and regular. It has had a vast influence on the balance of trade, which, though it has been great some years, has not, upon the whole, been equal to what it was previous to the American war, when the whole amount of foreign commerce was not one-half of what it has been for these last ten years.

{119} If it could be done, it would bring on poverty; but, as the excess of crops over the consumption is not, in any nation, equal to one-tenth of its whole revenue; and, as the expense of eatables amount to nearly one-half, the wealth of a nation would soon be destroyed, if it were possible to produce from other nations a supply. The calculation would be nearly as under for England, putting the population at nine millions.

In ordinary times, nine millions of people living on bread, potatoes, &c. would require about four millions of acres; but nine millions, living on animal food, will require thirty-six millions of acres.

[end of page #145]

live in a more expensive way than the rest; perhaps, this may be reckoned at one-fourth, but, in countries that are poor, even that fourth cannot afford to eat animal food. If, however, a country becomes sufficiently rich for one-sixth to live chiefly on animal food, and the other five-sixths to live one day in the week on that food, the effect will be as if one-third lived on it constantly, which would require two- thirds more territory than when the whole lived on bread.

Those who think that such matters find their own level, and regulate themselves, may be right in the long run, for so they indeed do. But how? When poverty and want came, no doubt the consumption of flesh-meat would be diminished; when the country had no means of supplying itself as it did when it was rich, famine would play its part in becoming one of the regulators; but, before this regulation could be effected, the evil we wish to prevent would have taken place. The country would be depopulated and ruined. We must, therefore, in trying to avert the decline of a nation, not set any thing down for the counteracting and adjusting power, which is known sometimes to interfere so very advantageously in the affairs of men. Though it is true that it does interfere, it is in all cases of this sort too late, it is an effect of the cause which we wish to avoid; we can only look to it here for stopping the career in process of time, but, never for preventing it.

We know that the extravagance of an individual impairs his fortune, and, that the diminution of means will, at length, counteract the extravagance; but, then it will do so when it is too late, and after he is ruined. Wastefulness may be stopped, but it cannot possibly stop itself, as the diminution of means is the cause of the extravagance ceasing, and itself is an effect of the prior existence of the extravagance.

Regarding men merely then as producing and consuming, (the proportion between which regulates the wealth of a nation,) we find that, in their own persons, there is a rooted tendency to bring on the decline. But we shall farther find that not only do people in wealthy and luxurious nations produce less and consume more than in nations less advanced, but they increase the number of unproductive labourers, all of whom consume without producing. They also main- [end of page #146] tain animals who consume, but do nothing towards production. {120} No country, in which the people live much upon animal food, can be well peopled. Two hundred persons to a square mile of country is nearly the highest population of any nation in Europe, that is, as near as may be, three acres and a quarter to each person; but, on an average, even in France, there are more than four acres to each.

Supposing that one-half of the land is cultivated, then that gives about two acres to each person.

Supposing, again, that one-third of this is consumed by horses or other animals who labour; or, supposing that they do not serve for the food of man, then there will be nearly about one acre and a quarter for the maintenance of each person.

It will, however, only require half an acre to one person, if they all lived on field vegetables; {121} and, if they all lived on fresh meat, it would require four acres; the natural conclusion is, that one-fourth live on animal food, and the other three-fourths on vegetables, or what is the same thing, that the proportions of the two sorts of food are as one to three.

According to the proportion of the prices in France, of four to one, it would certainly cost double the price to live on animal food that =sic= it does on vegetables; that is to say, if the only vegetable was bread, supposing which is the case, that one pound of meat supplies the place of two pounds of bread, as it certainly does. In England, where beef is only twice the price of bread, {122} it is almost a matter of indifference as to price, whether a working man lives on vegetables or animal food. To the taste and the stomach, however, it is no matter of indifference, the animal food, therefore, is preferred; but if it were a matter of some importance, in point of economy, that would not prevent the people of a country, flouris.h.i.+ng by manufactures, from

{120} One good horse well kept, whether for pleasure or labour (it has already been said) will consume nearly as much as a moderate family.

{121} Vegetables raised in the kitchen-garden would go vastly further, but this is a rough average, the subject neither admitting of, nor requiring accurate investigation.

{122} That is about the usual proportion, though about a year ago it was four times as much in France.

[end of page #147]

eating it, and thereby at length sinking to a lower degree of population than a poor country living on vegetable food.

In all nations getting wealthy this is a consideration, but most so when the wealth is acquired by manufactures, when the lower and numerous cla.s.s have an opportunity of gratifying themselves by indulging in the species of food which they find the most agreeable.

This, like the other changes of manners, of which it is only a part, is a natural consequence of a propensity inherent in human nature; it cannot, therefore, be prevented or done away, though it may, to a certain degree, be counteracted. The manner of counteracting it not being a general manner, but depending on circ.u.mstances, shall be treated of when investigating the increasing danger, arising from this cause, in the English nation.

It remains at present for us to examine another evil attendant on the inadequacy of the soil to supply the consumption of a country.

One of the most alarming circ.u.mstances attendant on this situation of things is, that provisions become an object of monopoly, and the most dangerous and destructive of all objects. The law has interfered in regulating the interest of money, but not in the rent of houses or of other use of property. Circ.u.mstances may occur, in which the necessity of procuring a loan of money is so great, as to induce the borrower to engage to pay an interest that would be ruinous to himself, and that would grant the lender the means of extortion, or of obtaining exorbitant profit. The same interference would be just as reasonable, wherever the same sort of necessity, by existing, puts one man in the power of another. This is the case with every necessary article of provision, which, indeed, may be considered as all one article, for the price of one is connected with the prices of all the others.

Provisions, indeed, are, in general, articles that cannot be preserved for any very great length of time; but then, again, they are articles of a nature that the consumers must have within a limited time also, and for which they are inclined to give an exorbitant price rather than not to have. The interference of the law between a man and the use of his property, ought to be as seldom as possible; but it has never been maintained as a general principle, that it ought never to interfere. [end of page #148] If it is at any time, or in any case, right to interfere legally, the question of when it is to be done becomes merely one of expediency, one of circ.u.mstance, but not one that admits of a general decision.

A writer of great (and deservedly great) reputation has said so much on this subject, and treated it in a way that both reason and experience prove to be wrong, that it is become indispensably necessary to argue the point. {123} Monopoly, regrating, and forestalling, which two last are only particular modes of monopolizing, have been considered as chimeras, as imaginary practices that have never existed, and that cannot possibly exist. They have been likewise a.s.similated to witchcraft, an ideal belief, arising in the times of ignorance. It is now become the creed of legislators and ministers, that trade should be left to regulate itself, that monopoly cannot exist.

With all the respect justly due to the learned writer who advanced so bold an opinion, it may be asked, since many instances occur, both in sacred and profane history, in ancient times, and in our own days, of provisions, on particular occasions, selling at one hundred times their natural price, (and, every price above the natural one, is called a monopoly price,) how can it be a.s.serted that they may not become an object of monopoly in a more general way, though not at so exorbitant a price?

How, it may be asked, can this thing, that has so often occurred in an extreme degree, a thing that is allowed to be possible, be compared with the miraculous effect of witchcraft, of the existence of which there does not appear to be one authentic record? The one, at all events, a natural, and the other, a supernatural effect. How are those to be admitted in fair comparison?

If we know that, at the siege of Mantua, the provisions rose to one hundred times their usual price, we may believe the same thing possible, at the siege of Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, and at the siege of Leyden, or at that of Paris. If we know that a guinea is given for a

{123} Dr. Smith, in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The author of the notes, and continuation, has, indeed, answered his arguments; but that does not render it less necessary to do so here.

[end of page #149]

bad dinner at an inn, which is not worth a s.h.i.+lling, merely because some particular circ.u.mstance has drawn more people together than can be provided for; and, because hunger admits not patiently of delay, can we dispute the inclination to extortion on the one hand, and the disposition to submit to it on the other?

If that is admitted, the interference of the law is allowable on the same principle on which it regulates the interest of money, though not to the same extent; that is, it is allowable, in particular instances, where the effects are similar, but not in all instances, because, in all instances, they are not similar. {124}

The rate of provisions is then liable, on particular occasions, to rise to a monopoly price, such as that of those rare productions of nature, the quant.i.ty of which cannot be increased, whatever the demand may be.

{125} It follows, as an evident consequence, that the price increases as the scarcity augments; but, if it only did so, the evil would not be so great as it really is. In the first place, the anxiety attendant on the risk of wanting so necessary an article creates a greater compet.i.tion amongst buyers than the degree of scarcity would occasion in an article of less necessity and importance. In a wealthy nation, the evil is still farther increased, by two other causes.

The high price which one part of the society is able to afford, and the wealth of those who sell, enables them to keep back the provisions from the market; the first cause operates in all countries nearly alike, for, the anxiety to have food is nearly equal all the world over. But the last two operate more or less, according to the wealth of the buyers and of the sellers, as the eagerness and ability of the former to purchase, and the interest and ability of the latter to keep back from selling, are regulated by the degree of wealth in a country. {126}

{124} The law concerning money is a general law, because, at all times, there are some individuals in want of it, and would be liable to grant exorbitant interest. It is not so with provisions, for, it is only occasionally that they cannot be had at reasonable prices.

{125} Dr. Smith divides produce into three different sorts; the two first are such as can be only produced in a certain quant.i.ty, whatever the demand may be; and such as can be produced always in sufficient quant.i.ty.

{126} This was proved by what happened in Paris in 1789, and in England in 1790. The [end of page #150] want in Paris was so real that there often was not, in that great city, bread, and materials to make it, more than sufficient for twenty-four hours: yet it never rose to above double the usual price, or twopence English the pound, (that is, sixteen sols for the four-pound loaf,) although the people were obliged to wait from six in the morning till two or three in the afternoon, before they could get a loaf a piece, and more they were not permitted to purchase or carry away. In London, where bread could always be had in plenty, for money, it rose to more than three times the usual price, (one and tenpence the quartern loaf,) yet bread is a much more necessary article to the poor in Paris than in London. But the case was, in London, the people are richer, and, in each place, it rose as high as the people were found able to pay.

When the necessaries of life become dear, and arrive at a monopoly- price, then all taxes and other burthens laid on the people become a matter comparatively of little importance. In England, where the taxes are higher than in any nation in the world, they do not come on the poor to above three pounds a head; {127} and, of those, at least one- half can be avoided by a little self-denial. But, when the provisions increase one-half in price, it amounts to at least four pounds a head to each person; so that the effect falls on the population of the country, with a most extraordinary degree of severity.

But, great as this evil is, it has, by the circ.u.mstances and nature of things, a tendency to increase the very cause in which it originates.

Though the highness of price diminishes the consumption of victuals in general, it diminishes the consumption of vegetable food, or bread, more than it does that of animal food. Though all sorts of eatables rise in price, in times of scarcity, yet bread, being the article that excites the greatest anxiety, rises higher in proportion than the others. This affords an encouragement to gratify the propensity for eating animal food; and this propensity is encouraged by an absurd and mistaken policy, by which (or perhaps rather an affectation of policy) economy in bread is prescribed, and not in other food; so that when people devour animal food, and increase the evil, they think they are most patriotically and humanely diminis.h.i.+ng it. {128}