The State itself does not hesitate to increase its expenses inaccordance with the increased prosperity of private persons.But ifthis demand afterwards suddenly ceases, disproportion betweenproduction and consumption follows; disproportion between thedecreased values of land and the money encumbrances upon it whichcontinue undiminished in amount; disproportion between the moneyrent payable under the leases, and the money produce of the landwhich has been taken on lease; disproportion between nationalincome and national expenditure; and in consequence of thesedisproportions, bankruptcy, embarrassment, discouragement,retrogression in the economical as well as in the mental andpolitical development of the nation.Agricultural prosperity wouldunder these circumstances act like the stimulant of opium or strongdrink, stimulating merely for a moment, but weakening for a wholelifetime.It would be like Franklin's flash of lightning, which fora moment displayed the objects in a shining light, but only tothrow them back into deeper darkness.
A period of temporary and passing prosperity in agriculture isa far greater misfortune than uniform and lasting poverty.Ifprosperity is to bring real benefit to individuals and nations, itmust be continuous.It, however, becomes continuous only in case itincreases gradually, and in case the nation possesses guaranteesfor this increase and for its duration.A lower value of land isincomparably better than fluctuations in its value; it is only agradual but steady increase in that value that affords to thenation lasting prosperity.And only by the possession of amanufacturing power of their own, can well-developed nationspossess any guarantee for the steady and permanent increase of thatvalue.
To how very small an extent clear ideas prevail as to theeffect of a home manufacturing power on the rent and value of landin comparison with the effect which foreign trade has on them, isshown most plainly by the circumstance that the proprietors ofvineyards in France still always believe that they are injuriouslyaffected by the French system of protection, and demand thegreatest possible freedom of commerce with England in hopes ofthereby increasing their rents.
Dr Bowring, in his report of the commercial relations existingbetween England and France, the fundamental tendency of which is toshow the benefit to France which a larger importation of Englishfabrics and a consequently increasing exportation of French wineswould occasion, has adduced facts from which the most strikingproof against his own argument can be brought.Dr Bowring quotesthe importation of French wines into the Netherlands (2,515,193gallons, 1829) against the annual importation into England (431,509gallons) to prove how greatly the sale of French wines in Englandcould be increased by freer commercial interchange between the twocountries.
Now supposing (although it is more than improbable that thesale of French wines in England would not find obstacles in thepredilection existing there for spirituous liquors, for strongbeer, and for the strong and cheap wines of Portugal, Spain,Sicily, Teneriffe, Madeira, and the Cape) -- supposing that Englandreally was to extend her consumption of French wines to the sameproportion as that of the Netherlands, she would certainly(calculating according to her population) be able to increase herconsumption to five or six million gallons (i.e.to from ten tofifteen fold her present amount); and from a superficial point ofview this certainly appears to promise great advantage to France,and to the French vineyard proprietors.
If, however, we investigate this matter to the bottom, weobtain another result.By as much freedom of trade as is possible-- we will not say complete freedom of trade, although the latterwould have to be accepted according to the principle enunciated,and to Bowring's arguments -- it can scarcely be doubted that theEnglish would draw to themselves a large part of the French marketfor manufactured goods (especially as regards the manufactures ofwoollens, cotton, linen, iron, and pottery).On the most moderateestimate we must assume, that in consequence of this decreasedFrench manufacturing production one million fewer inhabitants wouldlive in the French towns, and that one million fewer persons wouldbe employed in agriculture for the purpose of supplying thecitizens of those towns with raw material and necessaries of life.
Now, Dr Bowring himself estimates the consumption of the countrypopulation in France at 16 1/2 gallons per head, and that of thetown population at double that quantity, or 33 gallons per head.
Thus in consequence of the diminution of the home manufacturingpower effected by free trade, the internal consumption of wineswould decrease by 50 million gallons, while the exportation of winecould only increase by 5 or 6 million gallons.Such a result couldscarcely be to the special advantage of the French proprietors ofvineyards, since the internal demand for wines would necessarilysuffer ten times more than the external demand could possibly gain.