Footnotes
[1.]Yet Blanqui diffusively gives nearly one half of his “History of Political Economy” to the period before the sixteenth century, when politico-economic laws had not yet been recognized. A. L. Perry, “Political Economy” (eighteenth edition, 1883), also devotes thirty-five out of eighty-seven pages to the period in which there was no systematic study of political economy.[2.]Xenophon, “Means of increasing the Revenues of Attika,” ch. ix; also see his “Economics;” and Aristotle, “Politics,” b. i, ch. vi, b. iii, ch. i.[3.]“Republic,” b. ii.[4.]Roscher exhumed this book, entitled “De Origine, Natura, Jure et Mutationibus Monetarum,” and it was reprinted in 1864 by Wolowski at Paris, together with the treatise of Copernicus, “De Monetae Cudendae Ratione.”[5.]Sermon at St. Paul's Cross, 1549 (also see Jacob, “On the Precious Metals,” pp. 244, 245).[6.]1530-1596. See II. Baudrillart's “J. Bodin et son temps” (Paris, 1853). Bodin wrote “Réponse aux paradoxes de M. de Malestroit touchant l'enchérissement de toutes les choses et des monnaies” (1568), and “Discours sur le rehaussement et la diminution des monnaies” (1578).[7.]“A Briefe Conceipte of English Policy” (1581). The book was published under the initials “W. S.,” and was long regarded as the production of Shakespere.[8.]For information on this as well as a later period, consult Jacob “On the Precious Metals” (1832), a history of the production and influences of gold and silver from the earliest times. He is considered a very high authority. Humboldt's “Essay on New Spain” gives estimates and facts on the production of the precious metals in America. A very excellent study has been made by Levasseur in his “Histoire des classes ouvrières en France jusqu'à la Révolution.” For pauperism and its history, Nicholl's “History of the Poor Laws” is, of course, to be consulted.[9.]See Cossa, “Guide,” p. 119.[10.]See Antonio Serra, “Breve Trattato delle Cause che possono fare abbondare li Regni d' Oro e d' Argento,” Naples, 1613.[11.]Thomas Mun, “England's Treasure by Foreign Trade” (published in 1640 and 1664); “Advice of the Council of Trade” (1660), in Lord Overstone's “Select Tracts on Money”; Sir William Petty, “Political Arithmetic,” etc. (about 1680); Sir Josiah Child, “New Discourse of Trade” (1690); Sir Dudley North, “Discourse on Trade” (1691); Davenant's Works (1690-1711); Joshua Gee, “Trade and Navigation of Great Britain” (1730); Sir Matthew Decker (according to McCulloch, William Richardson), “Essay on the Causes of the Decline of Foreign Trade” (1744); Sir James Steuart, “An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy” (1767). For this period also consult Anderson's “History of Commerce” (1764), Macpherson's “Annals of Commerce” (1803), and Lord Sheffield's “Observations on the Commerce of the American States” (1783).[12.]The English Navigation Act of 1651 is usually described as the cause of the decline of Dutch shipping. The taxation necessitated by her wars is rather the cause, as history shows it to us. Sir Josiah Child (1668 and 1690) speaks of a serious depression in English commerce, and says the low rate of interest among the Dutch hurts the English trade. This does not show that the acts greatly aided English shipping. Moreover, Gee, a determined partisan of the mercantile theory, says, in 1730, that the ship-trade was languishing. Sir Matthew Decker (1744) confirms Gee's impressions. It looks very much as if the commercial supremacy of England was acquired by internal causes, and in spite of her navigation acts. The anonymous author of “Britannia Languens” confirms this view.[13.]This was, in substance, the whole teaching of one of the leading and most intelligent writers, Sir James Steuart (1767), “Principles of Political Economy.” See also Held's “Carey's Socialwissenschaft und das Merkantilsystem” (1866), which places Carey among the mercantilists.[14.]Forbonnais, “Récherches sur les finances de la France” (1595-1721); Pierre Clément, “Histoire de Colbert et de son administration” (1874); “Lettres, instructions et mémoires de Colbert” (1861-1870); “Histoire du système protecteur en France” (1854); Martin, “Histoire de France,” tome xiii.[15.]“Dîme royale” (1707).[16.]“Factum de la France” (1707).[17.]When Quesnay was sixty-one years old he wrote the article, “Fermiers,” in the “Encyclopædia” (of Diderot and D'Alembert) in 1756; article “Grains,” in the same, 1757; “Tableau économique,” 1758; “Maximes générales du gouvernement économique d'un royaume”; “Problème économique”; “Dialogues sur le commerce et sur les travaux des artisans”; “Droit natural” (1768). “Collection des principaux économistes,” edited by E. Daire (1846), is a collection containing the works of Quesnay, Turgot, and Dupont de Nemours. See also Lavergne, “Les économistes françaises du 18e siècle” (1870); and H. Martin, “Histoire de France.” Quesnay's “Tableau économique” was the Koran of the school.[18.]From χράτησις τῆς φύσεως, as indicating a reverence for natural laws.[19.]The words were not invented by Quesnay, but formed the phrase of a merchant, Legendre, in addressing Colbert; although it was later ascribed, as by Perry, “Political Economy” (p. 46), and Cossa (p. 150), to one of the Economists, Gournay. (See Wolowski, in his Essay prefixed to “Roscher's Political Economy,” p. 36, American translation.)[20.]The Margrave Karl Friedrich was the author of “Abrégé des principes de l'économie politique” (1775), and applied the physiocratic system of taxation to two of his villages with disastrous results.[21.]He published a first work on “Population” (1756); the “Théorie de l'impôt” (1760); and “Philosophie rurale” (1763). In this latter work Mirabeau adopted the “Tableau économique” as the key to the subject, and classed it with the discovery of printing and of money.[22.]In 1742 Turgot, when scarcely twenty, appeared as a sound writer on Paper Money in letters to Abbé Cicé. The physiocratic doctrines were presented in a more intelligible form in his greater work, “Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses” (1766). Three works of Turgot, on mining property, interest of money, and freedom in the corn-trade, bear a high reputation. For works treating of Turgot, see Batbie, “Turgot, philosophe, économiste et administrateur” (1861); Mastier, “Turgot, sa vie et sa doctrine” (1861); Tissot, “Turgot, sa vie, son administration et ses ouvrages” (1862).[23.]He was the editor of the works of Quesnay and Turgot, and wrote a “Mémoire de Turgot” (1817). He opposed the issue of assignats during the French Revolution, and, falling into disfavor, he barely escaped the scaffold. Having been a correspondent of Jefferson's, when Napoleon returned from Elba, he came to America, and settled in Delaware, where he died in 1817. The connection between the Economists and the framers of our Constitution is interesting, because it explains some peculiarities introduced into our system of taxation in that document. The only direct taxes recognized by the Supreme Court under our Constitution are the poll and land taxes; and it is in this connection that the constitutionality of the income-tax (a direct tax) is doubted.[24.]One of the earliest is that of Roger Coke (1675), in which he argues for free trade, and attacks the navigation acts. Sir Dudley North's “Discourse on Trade” (1691) urges that the whole world, as regards trade, is but one people, and explains that money is only merchandise.[25.]Joseph Harris, an official in the London Mint, published a very clear exposition of this subject in his “Essay upon Money and Coins” (1757); but, eighty years before, Rice Vaughan had given a satisfactory statement in his “Treatise of Money.”[26.]“Contemporary Review,” January, 1881, “Richard Cantillon.” Adam Smith had quoted Cantillon on his discussion of the wages of labor, b. i, ch. viii, and evidently knew his book.[27.]Born in 1723, and died 1790; he was eleven years younger than Hume. A Professor of Logic (1751) and Moral Philosophy (1752) at Glasgow, he published a treatise on ethical philosophy, entitled the “Theory of Moral Sentiments” (1739). Dugald Stewart is the authority as to Smith's life, having received information from a contemporary of Smith's, Professor Miller (see Playfair's edition of Smith's works); for Adam Smith destroyed all his own papers in his last illness. His lectures on political economy at Glasgow outlined the results as they appeared in the “Wealth of Nations”; it was not until 1764 that he resigned his professorship, and spent two years on the Continent (twelve months of this in France). On his return home he immured himself for ten years of quiet study, and published the “Wealth of Nations” in 1776. (See also McCulloch's introduction to his edition of the “Wealth of Nations,” and Bagehot's “Economic Studies,” iii.)[28.]A glance at Sir James Steuart's treatise (1767) with the “Wealth of Nations” shows Adam Smith's great qualities; the former was a series of detached essays, although of wide range, but admittedly without any consistent plan.[29.]
(a.) He went into a vague discussion upon labor as a measure of value. (b.) A legal rate of interest received his support, and his argument was answered effectually by Bentham (“Defense of Usury”). (c.) While not agreeing with the French school that agriculture is the only industry producing more than it consumes, and so land pays rent, yet he thinks that it produces more in proportion to the labor than other industries; that manufactures came next; and exportation and commerce after them. This error, however, did not modify his more important conclusions. Thorold Rogers and even Chevalier, however, claim that Adam Smith drew his inspiration from the French school. (d.) In the discussion of rent, he failed to follow out his ideas to a legitimate end, and did not get at the true doctrine. While hinting at the right connection between price and rent, he yet believed that rent formed a part of price. Of the fundamental principle in the doctrine of rent, the law of diminishing returns, he had no full knowledge, but came very close to it. He points out that in colonies, when the good soil has all been occupied, profits fall. (e.) In saying that every animal naturally multiplies in proportion to, and is limited by, the means of subsistence, Adam Smith just missed Malthus's law of population. In fact, Cantillon came quite as near it.
Book III in his “Wealth of Nations” is concerned with the policy of Europe in encouraging commerce at the expense of agriculture, and has less interest for us. Book V considers the revenue of the sovereign, and much of it is now obsolete; but his discussion of taxation is still highly important.
Among the English Liberals carried away by the French Revolution, and by such theories as those of Condorcet, was William Godwin, the author of “Political Justice” (1793) and the “Inquirer” (1797), who advocated the abolition of government and even marriage, since by the universal practice of the golden rule there would come about a lengthening of life. Malthus tells us that his study was brought forward as an answer to the doctrines of the “Inquirer,” and he applied his principles to Condorcet's and Godwin's ideas. It was a period when pauperism demanded attention from all. Malthus favored the repeal of the old poor-laws, as destroying independence of character among the poor.
Malthus also wrote “Principles of Political Economy” (1821) and “Definitions in Political Economy” (1827), but the former did not increase his reputation. He believed in taxing imported corn, and he gave in his adherence to the doctrine of over-production. But, on the other hand, he was one of several writers who, almost at the same time, discovered the true theory of rent. His father was a friend of Godwin, and a correspondent of Rousseau. (See Bagehot, “Economic Studies,” p. 135.)
The first division of Roscher's (born 1817) treatise, also known under the title of “Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie,” has been translated here by J. J. Lalor, in two volumes, “Principles of Political Economy” (1878), with an essay by Wolowski on the historical method inserted. In 1840 he was made Privat-Docent at Göttingen, and professor extraordinary in 1843. In 1844 he was called to a chair at Erlangen, but since 1848 he has remained at Leipsic. A list of Roscher's works is as follows:
“Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die Staatswirthschaft nach geschichtlicher Methode” (1843); “Kornhandel und Theuerungspolitik” (third edition, 1852); “Untersuchungen über das Colonialwesen”; “Verhältniss der Nationalökonomie zum klassischen Alterthume” (1849); “Geschichte der englischen Volkswirthschaftslehre im 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts”; “Ein nationalökonom. Princep der Forstwirthschaft”; “Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft aus dem geschichtlichen Standpunkte” (second edition, 1861); “Die deutsche Nationalökonomie an der Grenzscheide des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts” (1862); “Gründungsgeschichte des Zollvereins” (1870); “Betrachtungen über die Währungsfrage der deutschen Müntzreform” (1872); “Geschichte der Nationalökonomie in Deutschland” (1874); “Nationalökonomie des Ackerbaues” (eighth edition, 1875). His histories of political economy in England and Germany are particularly valuable (see review by Cliffe Leslie, “Fortnightly Review,” July, 1875). But he does not rightly estimate the English writers when he takes McLeod as a type; and Carey is the only American to whom he refers.
By far the ablest is Adolph Wagner, of Berlin, editor of Rau's “Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie” (1872). He also published “Die russische Papierwährung” (1868); “Staatspapiergeld, Reichs-Kassen Scheine, und Banknoten” (1874); “Unsere Müntzreform” (1877); “Finanzwissenschaft” (1877); and “Die Communalsteuerfrage” (1878).
Dr. Eduard Engel was formerly the head of the Prussian Bureau of Statistics. Professor Gustav Schönberg, of Tübingen, with the assistance of twenty-one other economists, produced a large “Handbuch der politischen Oekonomie” (1882). The school have expressed their peculiar doctrines in the “Zeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft” (quarterly, founded 1844, Tübingen), and the “Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie” (established at Jena, 1863). Also, see A. Wagner's “Rede über die sociale Frage” (1872), H. v. Scheel's “Die Theorie der socialen Frage” (1871), and G. Schmoller's “Ueber einige Grundfrage des Rects und der Volkswirthschaft” (1875). A. E. F. Schäffle, once Minister of Commerce at Vienna, gained considerable reputation by “Das gesellschaftliche System der menschlichen Wirthschaft” (third edition, 1873).
The subjoined extract from the separate essay [“Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy”] previously referred to will give some assistance in following the course of the phenomena. It is adapted to the imaginary case used for illustration throughout that essay, the case of a trade between England and Germany in cloth and linen.
“We may, at first, make whatever supposition we will with respect to the value of money. Let us suppose, therefore, that, before the opening of the trade, the price of cloth is the same in both countries, namely, six shillings per yard. As ten yards of cloth were supposed to exchange in England for fifteen yards of linen, in Germany for twenty, we must suppose that linen is sold in England at four shillings per yard, in Germany at three. Cost of carriage and importer's profit are left, as before, out of consideration.
“In this state of prices, cloth, it is evident, can not yet be exported from England into Germany; but linen can be imported from Germany into England. It will be so; and, in the first instance, the linen will be paid for in money.
“The efflux of money from England and its influx into Germany will raise money prices in the latter country, and lower them in the former. Linen will rise in Germany above three shillings per yard, and cloth above six shillings. Linen in England, being imported from Germany, will (since cost of carriage is not reckoned) sink to the same price as in that country, while cloth will fall below six shillings. As soon as the price of cloth is lower in England than in Germany, it will begin to be exported, and the price of cloth in Germany will fall to what it is in England. As long as the cloth exported does not suffice to pay for the linen imported, money will continue to flow from England into Germany, and prices generally will continue to fall in England and rise in Germany.
“By the fall, however, of cloth in England, cloth will fall in Germany also, and the demand for it will increase. By the rise of linen in Germany, linen must rise in England also, and the demand for it will diminish. As cloth fell in price and linen rose, there would be some particular price of both articles at which the cloth exported and the linen imported would exactly pay for each other. At this point prices would remain, because money would then cease to move out of England into Germany. What this point might be would entirely depend upon the circumstances and inclinations of the purchasers on both sides. If the fall of cloth did not much increase the demand for it in Germany, and the rise of linen did not diminish very rapidly the demand for it in England, much money must pass before the equilibrium is restored; cloth would fall very much, and linen would rise, until England, perhaps, had to pay nearly as much for it as when she produced it for herself. But, if, on the contrary, the fall of cloth caused a very rapid increase of the demand for it in Germany, and the rise of linen in Germany reduced very rapidly the demand in England from what it was under the influence of the first cheapness produced by the opening of the trade, the cloth would very soon suffice to pay for the linen, little money would pass between the two countries, and England would derive a large portion of the benefit of the trade. We have thus arrived at precisely the same conclusion, in supposing the employment of money, which we found to hold under the supposition of barter.
“In what shape the benefit accrues to the two nations from the trade is clear enough. Germany, before the commencement of the trade, paid six shillings per yard for broadcloth; she now obtains it at a lower price. This, however, is not the whole of her advantage. As the money-prices of all her other commodities have risen, the money-incomes of all her producers have increased. This is no advantage to them in buying from each other, because the price of what they buy has risen in the same ratio with their means of paying for it: but it is an advantage to them in buying anything which has not risen, and, still more, anything which has fallen. They, therefore, benefit as consumers of cloth, not merely to the extent to which cloth has fallen, but also to the extent to which other prices have risen. Suppose that this is one tenth. The same proportion of their money-incomes as before will suffice to supply their other wants; and the remainder, being increased one tenth in amount, will enable them to purchase one tenth more cloth than before, even though cloth had not fallen: but it has fallen; so that they are doubly gainers. They purchase the same quantity with less money, and have more to expend upon their other wants.
“In England, on the contrary, general money-prices have fallen. Linen, however, has fallen more than the rest, having been lowered in price by importation from a country where it was cheaper; whereas the others have fallen only from the consequent efflux of money. Notwithstanding, therefore, the general fall of money-prices, the English producers will be exactly as they were in all other respects, while they will gain as purchasers of linen.
“The greater the efflux of money required to restore the equilibrium, the greater will be the gain of Germany, both by the fall of cloth and by the rise of her general prices. The less the efflux of money requisite, the greater will be the gain of England; because the price of linen will continue lower, and her general prices will not be reduced so much. It must not, however, be imagined that high money-prices are a good, and low money-prices an evil, in themselves. But, the higher the general money-prices in any country, the greater will be that country's means of purchasing those commodities, which, being imported from abroad, are independent of the causes which keep prices high at home.”
“In practice, the cloth and the linen would not, as here supposed, be at the same price in England and in Germany: each would be dearer in money-price in the country which imported than in that which produced it, by the amount of the cost of carriage, together with the ordinary profit on the importer's capital for the average length of time which elapsed before the commodity could be disposed of. But it does not follow that each country pays the cost of carriage of the commodity it imports; for the addition of this item to the price may operate as a greater check to demand on one side than on the other; and the equation of international demand, and consequent equilibrium of payments, may not be maintained. Money would then flow out of one country into the other, until, in the manner already illustrated, the equilibrium was restored: and, when this was effected, one country would be paying more than its own cost of carriage, and the other less.”—Mill.
See also Von Böhmert, “Gewinnbetheiligung,” second edition, 1878, and Jevons's “Methods of Social Reform” (1883). Professor Jevons (“The State in Relation to Labor,” pp. 146, 147) has given a brief bibliography, which I reproduce here:
Charles Babbage, “Economy of Manufactures,” chap. xxvi; H. C. Briggs, “Social Science Association,” 1869; H. C. and A. Briggs, “Evidence before the Trades-Union Commission,” March 4, 1868, Questions 12,485 to 12,753 [Parliamentary Documents]; “The Industrial Partnerships Record”; Pare, “Co-operative Agriculture” (Longmans) 1870; Jean Billon, “Participation des Ouvriers aux Bénéfices des Patrons,” Genève, 1877; Fougerousse, “Patrons et Ouvriers de Paris” (Chaix), 1880; Sedley Taylor, “Society of Arts Journal,” February 18, 1881, vol. xxix, pp. 260-270; also in “Nineteenth Century,” May, 1881, pp. 802-811, “On Profit-Sharing”; J. C. Van Marken, “La Question Ouvrière: Essai de Solution Pratique” (Chaix) 1881.
Another common objection is that large and expensive accommodation is often required, not as a residence, but for business. But it is an admitted principle that buildings, or portions of buildings, occupied exclusively for business, such as shops, warehouses, or manufactories, ought to be exempted from house-tax.
It has been also objected that house-rent in the rural districts is much lower than in towns, and lower in some towns and in some rural districts than in others; so that a tax proportioned to it would have a corresponding inequality of pressure. To this, however, it may be answered that, in places where house-rent is low, persons of the same amount of income usually live in larger and better houses, and thus expend in house-rent more nearly the same proportion of their incomes than might at first sight appear. Or, if not, the probability will be that many of them live in those places precisely because they are too poor to live elsewhere, and have, therefore, the strongest claim to be taxed lightly. In some cases it is precisely because the people are poor that house-rent remains low.—Mill.