list2-第39章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





did　not　clearly　recognise　the　influence　of　manufactures　on　the



increase　of　rents；　on　the　market　value　of　landed　property　itself；



and　on　the　agricultural　capital；　and　did　not　state　this　by　any



means　to　its　full　extent；　but；　on　the　contrary；　has　drawn　a



comparison　between　agriculture　and　manufactures　in　such　a　manner



that　he　would　to　a　make　it　appear　that　agriculture　is　far　more



valuable　and　important　nation　than　manufactures；　and　that　the



prosperity　resulting　from　it　is　far　more　lasting　than　the



prosperity　resulting　from　the　latter。　Adam　Smith　in　so　doing　merely



sanctioned　the　erroneous　view　of　the　physiocratic　school；　although



in　a　somewhat　modified　manner。　He　was　evidently　misled　by　the



circumstance　that　　as　we　have　already　demonstrated　by　the



statistical　conditions　of　England　　the　material　agricultural



capital　is　（even　in　the　richest　manufacturing　country）　ten　to



twenty　times　more　important　than　the　material　manufacturing



capital；　in　fact；　even　the　annual　agricultural　productiOn　far



exceeds　in　value　the　total　manufacturing　capital。　The　same



circumstance　may　also　have　induced　the　physiocratic　school　to



over…estimate　the　value　of　agriculture　in　comparison　with



manufactures。　Superficially　considered；　it　certainly　appears　as　if



agriculture　enriches　a　country　ten　times　more；　and　consequently



deserves　ten　times　more　consideration；　and　is　ten　times　more



important　to　the　State　than　manufactures。　This；　however；　is　merely



apparent。　If　we　investigate　the　causes　of　this　agricultural



prosperity　to　their　basis；　we　find　them　principally　in　the



existence　of　manufactures。　It　is　those　218　millions　of



manufacturing　capital　which　have　principally　called　into　existence



those　3；311　millions　of　agricultural　capital。　The　same



consideration　holds　good　as　respects　means　of　transport；　it　is　the



money　expended　in　constructing　them　which　has　made　those　lands



which　are　within　the　reach　of　the　canals　more　valuable。　If　the



means　of　transport　along　a　canal　be　destroyed；　we　may　use　the　water



which　has　been　hitherto　employed　for　transport；　for　irrigating



meadows　　apparently；　therefore；　for　increasing　agricultural



capital　and　agricultural　rents；　&c。；　but　even　supposing　that　by



such　a　process　the　value　of　these　meadows　rose　to　millions；　this



alteration；　apparently　profitable　to　agriculture；　will　nevertheless



lower　the　total　value　of　the　landed　property　which　is　within　reach



of　the　canal　ten　times　more。



　　　　Considered　from　this　point　of　view；　from　the　circumstance　that



the　total　manufacturing　capital　of　a　country　is　so　small　in



comparison　with　its　total　agricultural　capital；　conclusions　must　be



drawn　of　a　totally　different　character　from　those　which　the　present



and　preceding　school　have　drawn　from　it。　The　maintenance　and



augmentation　of　the　manufacturing　power　seem　now；　even　to　the



agriculturist；　the　more　valuable；　the　less　capital　as　compared　with



agriculture　it　requires　to　absorb　in　itself　and　to　put　into



circulation。　Yes；　it　must　now　become　evident　to　the　agriculturist；



and　especially　to　the　rent…owners　and　the　landed　proprietors　of　a



country；　that　it　would　be　to　their　interest　to　maintain　and　develop



an　internal　manufacturing　power；　even　had　they　to　procure　the



requisite　capital　without　hope　of　direct　recompense；　just　as　it　is



to　their　interest　to　construct　canals；　railways；　and　roads　even　if



these　undertakings　yield　no　real　nett　profit。　Let　us　apply　the



foregoing　considerations　to　those　industries　which　lie　nearest　and



are　most　necessary　to　agriculture；　e。g。　flour　mills；　and　there　will



be　no　room　for　doubt　as　to　the　correctness　of　our　views。　Compare；



on　the　one　hand；　the　value　of　landed　property　and　rent　in　a



district　where　a　mill　is　not　within　reach　of　the　agriculturist；



with　their　value　in　those　districts　where　this　industry　is　carried



on　in　their　very　midst；　and　we　shall　find　that　already　this　single



industry　has　a　considerable　effect　on　the　value　of　land　and　on



rent；　that　there；　under　similar　conditions　of　natural　fertility；



the　total　value　of　the　land　has　not　merely　increased　to　double；　but



to　ten　or　twenty　times　more　than　the　cost　of　erecting　the　mill



amounted　to；　and　that　the　landed　proprietors　would　have　obtained



considerable　advantage　by　the　erection　of　the　mill；　even　if　they



had　built　it　at　their　common　expense　and　presented　it　to　the



miller。　The　latter　circumstance；　in　fact；　takes　place　every　day　in



the　backwoods　of　North　America；　where；　in　cases　when　an　individual



has　not　adequate　capital　to　erect　such　works　entirely　at　his　own



expense；　the　landowner　gladly　helps　him　by　contributing　labour；　by



team　work；　free　gifts　of　timber；　&c。　In　fact；　the　same　thing　also



occurred；　although　in　another　form；　in　countries　of　earlier



civilisation；　here　must　undoubtedly　be　sought　the　origin　of　many



ancient　feudal　'common　mill'　rights。



　　　　As　it　is　in　the　case　of　the　corn　mill；　so　is　it　in　those　of



saw；　oil；　and　plaster　mills；　so　is　it　in　that　of　iron　works；



everywhere　it　can　be　proved　that　the　rent　and　the　value　of　landed



property　rise　in　proportion　as　the　property　lies　nearer　to　these



industries；　and　especially　according　as　they　are　in　closer　or　less



close　commercial　relations　with　agriculture。



　　　　And　why　should　this　not　be　the　case　with　woollen；　flax；　hemp；



paper；　and　cotton　mills？　Why　not　with　all　manufacturing　industries？



We　see；　at　least；　everywhere　that　rent　and　value　of　landed　property



rise　in　exactly　the　same　proportion　with　the　proximity　of　that



property　to　the　town；　and　with　the　degree　in　which　the　town　is



populous　and　industrious。　If　in　such　comparatively　small　districts



we　calculate　the　value　of　the　landed　property　and　the　capital



expended　thereon；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　the　value　of　the　capital



employed　in　various　industries；　and　compare　their　total　amount；　we



shall　find　everywhere　that　the　former　is　at　least　ten　times　larger



than　the　latter。　But　it　would　be　folly　to　conclude　from　this　that



a　nation　obtains　greater　advantages　by　investing　its　material



capital　in　agriculture　than　in　manufactures；　and　that　the　former　is



in　itself　more　favourable　to　the　augmentation　of　capital　than　the



latter。　The　increase　of　the　material　agricultural　capital　depends



for　the　most　part　on　the　increase　of　the　material　manufacturing



capital；　and　nations　which　do　not　recognise　this　truth；　however



much　they　may　be　favoured　by　nature　in　agriculture；　will　not　only



not　progress；　but　will　retrograde　in　wealth；　population；　culture；



and　power。



　　　　We　see；　nevertheless；　how　the　proprietors　of　rent　and　of　landed



property　not　unfrequently　regard　those　fiscal　and　political



regulations　which　aim　at　the　establishment　of　a　native



manufacturing　power　as　privileges　which　serve　merely　to　enrich　the



manufacturers；　the　burden　of　which　they　（the　landed　interest）　have



exclusively　to　bear。　They；　who　at　the　beginning　of　their



agricultural　operations　so　clearly　perceived　what　great　advantages



they　might　obtain　if　a　corn　mill；　a　saw　mill；　or　an　iron　work　were



established　in　their　neighbourhood；　that　they　themselves　submitted



to　the　greatest　sacrifices　in　order　to　contribute　towards　the



erection　of　such　works；　can　no　longer；　when　their　interests　as



agriculturists　have　somewhat　improved；　comprehend　what　immense



advantages　the　total　agricultural　interest　of　the　country　would



derive　from　a　perfectly　developed　national　industry　of　its　own；　and



how　its　own　advantage　demands　that　it　should　submit　to　those



sacrifices　without　which　this　object　cannot　be　attained。　It



therefore　happens；　that；　only　i