[91] “There are few states in which there is not a constant effort in the population to increase beyond the means of subsistence. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of society to distress, and to prevent any great permanent melioration of their condition. . . . The constant effort towards population . . . increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased,” etc.—Malthus on Population, vol. i. pp. 17, 18, 6th edition.
[92] See chap. xi. ante.
[93] “Although we might describe fermage, in a general way, as the letting or leasing of land, in whatever form it is done, we must distinguish two forms of letting, equally common in various parts of Europe, and very different in their effects. In the one form, the land is let for a fixed rent, payable in money annually. In the other, it is let under the condition of the produce being divided between the proprietor and the cultivator. It is to the first of these two modes of leasing land that we give more particularly the name of fermage. The other is generally designated in France as métayage.” (Dictionnaire de l’Économie Politique, tome i. p. 759.)—Translator.
XVII. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SERVICES
[94] “The moment this value is handed over by the taxpayer, it is lost to him; the moment it is consumed by the Government, it is lost to everybody, and does not return to society.”—J. B. Say, Traité d’Économie Politique, liv. iii. chap 9.
Unquestionably; but society gains in return the service which is rendered to it—security, for example. Moreover, Say returns to the correct doctrine almost immediately afterwards, when he says,—“To levy a tax is to do a wrong to society—a wrong which is compensated by no advantage, when no service is rendered to society in exchange.”—Ibid.
[95] “Public contributions, even when they are consented to by the nation, are a violation of property, seeing they can be levied only on values which have been produced by the land, capital, and industry of individuals. Thus, whenever they exceed the amount indispensable for the preservation of society, we must regard them as spoliation.”—J. B. Say. Traité d’Économie Politique, liv. iii. chap. 9.
Here, again, the subsequent qualification corrects the too absolute judgment previously pronounced. The doctrine that services are exchanged for services, simplifies much both the problem and its solution.
[96] Civil law terms. See ante, p. 172.
[97] The effects of such a transformation are strikingly exemplified in an instance given by M. d’Hautpoul, the Minister of War:—“Each soldier,” he says, “receives 16 centimes a day for his maintenance. The Government takes these 16 centimes, and undertakes to support him. The consequence is that all have the same rations, and of the same kind, whether it suit them or not. One has too much bread, and throws it away. Another has not enough of butcher’s meat, and so on. We have, therefore, made an experiment. We leave to the soldiers the free disposal of these 16 centimes, and we are happy to find that this has been attended with a great improvement in their condition. Each now consults his own tastes and likings, and studies the market prices of what they want to purchase. Generally they have, of their own accord, substituted a portion of butcher’s meat for bread. In some instances they buy more bread, in others more meat, in others more vegetables, in others more fish. Their health is improved; they are better pleased; and the State is relieved from a great responsibility.”