SIR,We have been arguing upon the hypothesis of an indefinite liberty given to a nation,to carry to as great an extent as possible every kind of production,and I think I have proved that if this hypothesis were to be realised,that nation would be able to purchase whatever it chose.From this power,and man's natural desire,continually to better his condition,would infallibly proceed an infinite multiplication of individuals and enjoyments.
This is not however the ease.Nature on the one hand,and the vices of social community on the other,have set bounds to this indefinite power of production,and the enquiry into these obstacles,by bringing us into the real world will serve to prove,in addition to the doctrine established in my treatise on Political Economy,that it is these obstacles to production which alone prevent the circulation and the vent of productions.
I do not pretend to be able to point out all the obstacles which counteract production.Many of them will no doubt be discovered as Political Economy improves,others will perhaps never be discovered,but very powerful ones may be already descried both in natural and political order.
In natural order,the production of alimentary provisions has closer bounds prescribed to it than the production of provisions of furniture and clothes.At the same time,that mankind has need either in weight or value,of a greater quantity of alimentary produce,than of all the rest put together,these productions cannot be brought from a great distance,for their transmittal is difficult,and keeping them is expensive.As to those which can be grown within the territory of a nation,they have their limits,which a more perfect system of agriculture,and larger capitals engaged in agricultural operations,can no doubt remove,(21)but which must exist somewhere.Arthur Young thinks France scarcely produces half the alimentary provisions,she is capable of producing.(22)Suppose Arthur Young says true.Suppose even that with a better system of agriculture,France should grow twice the quantity of rural produce,without having more agriculturists,(23)she would then have 45million inhabitants who could employ themselves in any other occupation than agriculture.Her manufactural productions would find greater vent in the country than they do at present,and the surplus would find a vent among the manufacturing population itself.We should not be worse fed than we are now,but in general we should be better provided with manufactured articles;we should have better habitations,better furniture,finer clothes,and articles of use,instruction,and amusement,which are now attainable by a.very small number of persons.
All the rest of the population is still rude and uncultivated.
Still,in proportion as the manufacturing class increased,alimentary provisions would become more in demand,and dearer,in comparison with manufactured articles.The latter would procure more restricted profits and salaries,which would discourage their production;and thus it may be conceived,how those bounds which Nature sets to agricultural productions,would also set them to manufactural productions.But this effect,like every thin~which happens naturally and arises out of the nature of things,is a long way in the perspective,and would be accompanied with less inconvenience than any other possible event.
In admitting these bounds --set by Nature herself,to the production of food,and indirectly to that of all other articles --it may be asked,how very industrious countries,such as England,in which capitals abound,and communication is easy,are obstructed in the circulation of their commodities,long before their agricultural productions are arrived at a height beyond which they cannot go.There is then a vice,a hidden evil which torments them.There are probably more,and these will discover themselves successively;but already I perceive one,immense and disastrous,worthy of the most serious attention.
If it should happen that,after every commercial,manufactural,or agricultural enterprise,a man,a collector of duties,should come and establish himself;and that this man,without adding any thing to the merit of the production,to its usefulness,or to that quality which makes it sought.after and sells it,should nevertheless add to the cost of its production;what would be the result of this,I ask you?The price that is set upon an article,even when one has the means of attaining it,(24)depends on the enjoyment we expect from it,or the use it may be of.In proportion as the price gets up,it ceases,with respect to many persons,to be worth what it costs,and the number of its buyers decreases.
Besides,the tax not increasing the profit of any producer,but still enhancing the price of every article,the producer's income is no longer adequate to the purchase of the productions,from the moment that an accident such as I have just mentioned augments their price.
Let us explain to ourselves this effect by number,in order to trace it to its ultimate consequences.It is worth the pains bestowed upon it,if it points out to us the principal cause of an evil that threatens every industrious nation on the face of the earth.England already by her sufferings,warns other nations of the calamities in reserve for them;which will be the more disastrous,in proportion as a robust constitution induces them,more or jess,to very great exertions,from which very beneficial effects will result if not circumscribed,and frightful convulsions if they are.
