A proper amount of the rent of the better soils be determined.* consideration of this will show that it differs nothing in the main from Ricardo's notions; nor will it permit of a different inference in the question of tithes. Previous to the exhaustion of the best soils, corn plainly obeys the laws of all necessary manufactured articles; and were tithe then imposed, its burden would, without doubt, be thrown upon the consumer. The agriculturist obtained nothing more for it originally than the cost of its production; and as he will not produce it for less, he must, the moment he is laid under the necessity of giving a tenth of it away, raise his price until the remaining nine-tenths yield him this profitable return. If he cannot do this by a mere extra demand upon his consumer, he will do it by lessening his supply, or in other words, We entreat our readers to make themselves acquainted with the doctrine of Rent. If they knew it, it would unveil many a financial iniquity, of which, without such knowledge, they can think only in vague and unsatisfactory terms. Finance is a cunning tyrant, and we require to study well to become acquainted with its subtle oppressions. We are tempted to add here a refutation by the redoubted Christopher North, of some absurdities upon this subject, advanced by one of his more forward than wise correspondents. The refutation is complete and admirable, and incidentally illustrates our subject: "Our correspondent puts a case, the substance of which may be very briefly stated thus:-Edinburgh wants ten millions quarts of water, which can be furnished at one penny each. Afterwards Edinburgh wants one thousand quarts more, which cannot be furnished at less than one penny farthing. Now, is that any reason, says he, why the ten million men should renounce their advantage, and raise their price by a farthing in order to countenance the thousand men? This is his question. But he forgets one little thing. Before any man would think of producing the last thousand quarts, the ten millions must have been found insufficient for the demand; that insufficiency would express itself by a rise in the market price of the ten millions. This rise would act as a summons to the production of the last thousand quarts, and would take place not after (as our correspondent supposes the Ricardian to say), but before the production of that last thousand. That this increased price would be sustained after the supply was equalized with the demand, is evident, because the penny men could not return to their old price, and undersell the penny-farthing men, without driving them out of the market; since a penny-farthing, by the supposition, is the least sum that will pay profits and wages on the thousand quarts. But the pennyfarthing men cannot be driven out of the market, because the whole product by the very means of the case, is no more than sufficient for the demand; and if for a moment they should be driven out of the market, the increase of price consequent on insufficient supply would immediately recall them, In this state of things, the landlords of that land, or of those wells which produce the ten million quarts, finding that the producers have an advantage over the thousand quart men, step in and demand the whole difference between them, viz. a farthing-and so commences Rent. For those who raise water at a penny-farthing have the ordinary rate of profits; and therefore those who can raise it at a penny, have more than the ordinary rate by a farthing. This rent becomes confirmed by contracts; and after that all attempts to undersell become impossible, except by sacrificing some part of the ordinary rate of profit. "Our excellent correspondent will find it vain to kick against these irresistible doctrines. But he must allow us to add, that the old theory of Rent is not (as he supposes) opposed to the new theory, but simply different from it. Adam Smith did not deny any thing essential to the new views; he merely overlooked something, viz. the fact of the different rates of fertility in the soil. Neither did he uniformly overlook this; some things which, he says, imply that he had a glimpse of it; and with regard to mines, he was pretty sensible of this scale of differences, and of its consequences.-C. N." Hadst thou always written thus, O, Christopher! thy crutch would have dealt many a good blow for the Good Cause! by withdrawing his capital from an unprofitable investment. The only question that remains, then, is what may be the effect of this tax, after rent has arisen; or when the inferior soil is in the act of being forced into cultivation. Now, it will be noticed that this inferior soil is a check upon the monopoly exaction, or a means of defence in the hands of the public, exactly in proportion to its fertility. The more barren it is, or the smaller the quantity of corn which it will effectively return to the cultivator for his outlay of capital, the farther removed as it were will be the check it institutes; and the price may, and will be raised by the monopolists, exactly in proportion. But the tithing of the produce clearly diminishes the capitalist's effectual return, just by one-tenth, so that the check is by so much farther off; and, in this case too, the bur den of the tax is shifted upon the consumer. The subject is so important that it deserves numerical illustration. Suppose that the best soil we speak of produces twenty quarters per acre, and the next inferior soil only ten. Suppose also, that the cultivator of the first soil (while it alone was cultivated, and paid no rent) conceived himself remunerated for labour and outlay of capital, by 20s. per quarter, or a return of £20 per acre. So long as this good soil remains unexhausted, there is no circumstance which can occasion any disturbance in the price; but when it is exhausted, and no additional supply can be forced from it, the demand of the growing population will evidently raise that price :-a sum will hence accrue over and above wages and profits, or-rent. Now, the limits of that rise of price is plainly this:-It cannot rise higher than will enable the produce of the inferior soil to be sold for £20 per acre, the sum already supposed as the remunerating return; or, in other words, it cannot rise higher than £2 per quarter. So soon as it arrives at this point, the inferior soil will be broken up, and the supply henceforth go on in steady proportion to the demand. Let a tithe imposition be now imagined, and let us look at the result. If imposed before the first soil is exhausted, the farmer will have remaining, as his corn return, eighteen quarters in place of twenty, and from this eighteen he must extract his former money return of £20, or discontinue his trade. Fall back upon rent in the meantime he cannot, as he pays none, so that his only resource is a partial and temporary withdrawal of capital until the price is raised to £1 one-ninth, per quarter, by a temporary diminution of supply. At this price he will go on producing as before, and the markets will suffer no new disturbance until the good soil becomes exhausted. A rise of price will now take place, and proceed until checked by the productive powers of the next lowest soil. But this soil which, when untithed, returned ten quarters, will now only return nine to the capitalist ;* and the limit of monopoly exaction is precisely that sum which will make the price of nine quarters £20, or £2 two-ninths per quarter. It will be seen then that the price is in both these latter cases raised upon the consumer, and the rent will plainly be quite the same whether tithe is imposed or not. If the land is tithefree, the rent afforded by the higher soil, when the less fertile is just * From this may be apparent, the full weight of Mr. Senior's assertion, or admission, that the influence of tithes, as respects the consumer, renders the soil "less fertile." Really we have a strong desire to seize forcible hold of this ingenious economist, and without farther ceremony, give him a corporalship in our ranks. broke up, will be £20 per acre; and, if tithed, it will be nine quarters at £2 two-ninths per acre, or £20 also. It may be indeed alleged that the quantity which the bishop gets in this latter case, viz., three quarters, or a value of £63, being also a part of the residuum over and above the cost of production, has as much right to be named rent as the £20 which goes to the landlord,-that the total amount of real rent is thus £26},—and that this full sum would go into the proprietor's pocket, were the practice of tithing demolished. Now, we will not quarrel about a name, as our dispute is concerning things. What we assert is, that if tithe had not existed, the consumer would have paid only £2, instead of £2 two-ninths per quarter for his corn. If the foregoing statement proves any thing, it proves this; and it also demonstrates that the anonymous part of the residuum which the Bishop receives, would not, in other circumstances, have arisen at all. The noxious influence of the tithe diminished the power of the inferior soil as a check, just so far; and enabled the monopoly exaction to exceed its natural and free amount, precisely by this sum. This being granted-and we see not how it can be denied― our case becomes a very plain one. By what process matters would be restored, on the abolition of tithes, to their original state, and the price of provisions lowered from £23 to £2 per quarter, instead of the increment being put into landlords' pockets, we shall explain in a subsequent section. If the public have any means of defence against the economical results now demonstrated, it must be in what has sometimes been adduced in controversion of the Ricardo doctrine of tithes ; viz. a diminution in their consumption of corn, according as the price rises, and a consequent throwing of land out of cultivation, or a preventing it from being broken up so soon as it would otherwise have been. Now, there is a great deal of reality in the matter of fact of this statement; but it militates nothing against our proposition. It is certainly one of the best established truths of finance, that a tax cannot be laid upon any manufactured article, to the heightening of its price, without to a greater or less degree narrowing the use of that article. There is an ideal standard in most men's minds, by which the worth of articles of consumption is tried, and the moment their price exceeds this, the use of them is given up or abridged. In this event, the manufacture is also narrowed. But, it must be observed, that, though less is manufactured, nothing is manufactured cheaper. The high price caused by the tax is still paid by every consumer, though numbers are rendered unable to become consumers. The effect, in regard of corn, will, in similar cir cumstances, be precisely similar. If a diminution of demand takes place, permitting of a certain withdrawal of capital altogether, without necessitating a rise of price, so much more will just require to be temporarily withdrawn, in order to the permanent elevation of the price to the profitable point. The permanent diminution of demand will cause a permanent diminution of supply, but it will not cause that supply to be brought to market on unprofitable terms. The whole corn grown, then, will be still grown under the precise laws we have just unfolded; and the tithe-raised price will be paid by those who eat, although those who do not eat escape. It is absurd to regard this operation, as a means of relieving the consumer from his burden. The only effect it can have is the reducing of our poorer classes to half food, and thereby making tithe as well as rent less than they would be, if these classes consumed full food. But there is yet an increment upon every morsel consumed, which goes to the payment of tithe, and our proposition remains unhurt. If any inference can be hence drawn, it is, that the landlord also would benefit by the repeal of this noxious impost; that, as the people were enabled to live more generously, rents would rise, cultivation being extended and advanced. These are the remarks which we offer for the guidance of the student who would explore the Fallacies of "The True Theory of Rent." Colonel Thompson also gives somewhat into that ultra-Malthusianism we reprehended in Mr. Senior. What would the author of a certain admirable Catechism think of the application of such reasoning to the Corn Laws? We shall not advance farther at present; the foregoing dose of abstractions being quite enough for one month. We shall return to the inquiry, and look into all its practical details. It is these last which make out that popular and plausible case against us, to which we attribute the great prevalence of error. Let our friends, in the meantime, give the foregoing an attentive and thoughtful perusal; and we pledge ourselves to convince the most incredulous, in our next article on the subject, of the all important truth, that TITHES ARE PAID BY THE CON SUMER. SONNETS TO IONE. I. I CANNOT WOo thee, dearest, in such wise "Tis but a feint, sweet chider, to extend Or present, bringing joy, as sunbeams bring the morn! II. O chide me not for silence! Let me lie Still at thy feet, upgazing, love! Do thou Though wont of late such biddings to refuse, All sense of hate, and weariness, and wrong, While thoughts, like thee, all beautiful, beset The prison of my heart, and loose its captive, Song! SEA-BURKING; OR, THE MYSTERIES OF LLOYD's, EVERY DAY A SHIP IS LOST.-From an examination of Lloyd's Lists, from the year 1793 to the commencement of 1829, it has appeared that the number of British vessels alone, lost during that period, amounted, on an average, to no less than one and a half daily. We learn, from Moreau's tables, that the number of merchant-vessels employed at one time in the navigation of England and Scotland, amounts to about 20,008, having, one with another, a burden of 120 tons. Out of 551 ships of the royal navy of England, lost to the country during the period above-mentioned, only 160 were taken or destroyed by the enemy; the rest having either stranded or foundered, or having been burnt by accident-a striking proof that the dangers of naval warfare, however great, may be far exceeded by the storm, the hurricane, the shoal, and all the other perils of the deep. During the last great war in Europe, 32 British ships of the line went down to the bottom in the space of 22 years, besides 7 50-gun ships, 86 frigates, and a multitude of smaller vessels. The navies of the other European powers, France, Holland, Spain, and Denmark, were almost annihilated during the same period, so that the aggregate of their losses must have many times exceeded that of the kingdom of Great Britain. These numbers, we believe, very far exceeded what most people would have supposed. To this immense loss of ships of war and of commerce, the imagination must be left to supply the incalculable amount of wealth swallowed up with them, and the thousands of human beings who thus found a watery grave. More strength in the building might save half of this suffering. The following account of loss and accidents of British vessels is extracted from Lloyd's List of 1829:On foreign voyages, 157 wrecked; 284 driven on shore, of which 224 are known to have been got off, and probably more; 21 foundered or sunk; 1 run down; 35 abandoned at sea, 8 of them afterwards carried into port; 12 condemned, as unseaworthy; 6 upset, one of them righted; 27 missing, one of them a packet, no doubt foundered. Coasters and colliers:-109 wrecked; 297 driven on shore, of which 121 known to have been got off, and probably many more; 67 foundered or sunk, 4 of them raised, 6 run down; 13 abandoned, 5 of them afterwards carried in; 3 upset, 2 of them righted; 16 missing, no doubt foundered. During the year, 4 steam vessels were wrecked; 4 driven on shore, but got off; and 2 sunk. SEA-BURKING, TO THE ALARMING EXTENT OF TWO THOUSAND LIVES AND UPWARDS A-YEAR. THE following dialogue, between two clerks, sitting on the benches of the Royal Exchange, London, was lately overheard. 1st Clerk. "What a melancholy loss that is of the Shannon whaler, with most of the crew!" 2d Clerk. "Ay." "What a dreadful state for the crew to be in, for seven days and six nights, without shelter, amongst wet, cold, frost and snow, with nothing to eat and drink but flour, raw salt beef, and salt water, and obliged to drink their own blood for thirst, until some died raving mad, and others had the very flesh rotted off their bones!" "Yes," "What a pity such disasters could not be prevented in future!' "It would be a pity for some, but not for all.” "Why not for all?" "It would be no pity for ship-builders, ship-wrights, and ship-trades men." "Because another vessel will be required to supply the place of the Shannon, which gives employment to all these parties." "Then, do you mean to say, that it is to the profit of all these parties that vessels should be lost?" "It is so clear, as not to admit of dispute." "But surely it would have been to the advantage of the owners that the vessel had been preserved ?” "I doubt that very much." 66 Why so?" "Because, probably, it was insured to, or even above, its value." "I do not understand you." |