Experience seems to be very full on the opposite side. Where wages are excessively low, as inIreland, there is no industry; where excessively high, as in the American United States, there isthe greatest. What does Mr. Malthus himself mean by the stimulus which he says is given toindustry by an enlargement of the market?
Section IV. In What Manner Government Consumes (4.iv.1) All consumption is either by individuals, or by the government. Having treated of theconsumption of individuals, it only remains that we treat of that which has government for itscause.
(4.iv.2) Although the consumption by government, as far as really necessary, is of thehighest importance, it is not, unless very indirectly, subservient to production. That which is consumedby government, instead of being consumed as capital, and replaced by a produce, is consumed,and produces nothing. This consumption is, indeed, the cause of that protection, under which allproduction has taken place; but if other things were not consumed in a way different from that inwhich things are consumed by government, there would be no produce. These are reasons forplacing the expenditure of government under the head of unproductive consumption.
(4.iv.3) The revenue of government must be derived from rent, from profits of stock, or fromwages of labour.
(4.iv.4) It is, indeed, possible for government to consume part of the capital of the country.
This, however, it can only do for one year, or for a few years. Each year in which it consumes anyportion of the capital, it so far reduces the annual produce; and, if it continues, it must desolatethe country. This, therefore, cannot be regarded as a permanent source of revenue.
(4.iv.5) If the revenue of government must always be derived from one or more of threesources; rent, profits, wages; the only questions requiring an answer, are; in what manner, and in whatproportion, should it be taken from each?
(4.iv.6) The direct method is that which most obviously suggests itself. I shall, therefore,first, consider what seems to be most important in the direct mode of deriving a revenue togovernment from rent, profits, and wages; and, secondly, I shall consider the more remarkable ofthe expedients which have been employed for deriving it from them indirectly.
Section V. Taxes on Rent (4.v.1) It is sufficiently obvious, that the share of the rent of land, which may be taken todefray the expenses of the government, does not affect the industry of the country. The cultivation ofthe land depends upon the capitalist; to whom the appropriate motive is furnished, when hereceives the ordinary profits of stock. To him it is a matter of perfect indifference; whether hepays the surplus, in the shape of rent, to an individual proprietor; or, in that of revenue, to agovernment collector.
(4.v.2) In Europe, at one period, the greater part of, at least, the ordinary expenses of thesovereign was defrayed by land, which he held as a proprietor; while the expense of his militaryoperations was chiefly defrayed by his barons, to whom a property in certain portions of the landhad been granted on that express condition. In those times, the whole expense of thegovernment, with some trifling exception, was, therefore, defrayed from the rent of land.
(4.v.3) In the principal monarchies of Asia, almost the Whole expenses of the state have inall ages been defrayed from the rent of land; but in a manner somewhat different. The land was heldby the immediate cultivators, generally in small portions, with a perpetual and transferable title;but under an obligation of paying, annually, the government demand; which might be increasedat the pleasure of the sovereign; and seldom amounted to less than a full rent.
(4.v.4) If a body of people were to migrate into a new country, and land had not yet becomeprivate property, there would be this reason for considering the rent of land as a sourcepeculiarly adapted to supply the exigencies of the government; that industry would not, by thatmeans, sustain the smallest repression; and that the expense of the government would bedefrayed without imposing any burden upon any individual. The owners of capital would enjoyits profits; the class of labourers would enjoy their wages; without any deduction whatsoever;and every man would employ his capital, in the way which was really most advantageous,without any inducement from the mischievous operation of a tax, to remove it from a channel inwhich it was more, to one in which it would be less productive to the nation. There is, therefore,a peculiar advantage in reserving the rent of land as a fund for supplying the exigencies of thestate.
(4.v.5) There would be this inconvenience, indeed, even in a state of things, in which landhad not been made private property; that the rent of the land, in a country of a certain extent, andpeopled up to a certain degree, would exceed the amount of what government would need toexpend. The surplus ought undoubtedly to be distributed among the people, in the way likely tocontribute the most to their happiness; and there is no way, perhaps, in which this end can be sowell accomplished, as by rendering the land private property. As there is no difficulty, however,in rendering the land private property, with the rent liable for a part of the public burdens; sothere seems no difficulty in rendering it private property, with the rent answerable for the wholeof the public burdens. It would only in this case require a greater quantity of land to be aproperty of equal value. Practice would teach its value as accurately, under these, as underpresent circumstances; and the business of society would, it is evident, proceed withoutalteration in every other respect.
