Thoughts on the mechanism of societies

by marquis de Charles Casaux

First, The adopted maxim of the pretended advantage of enjoying the national commodities at the lowest prices, for the better encouragement of industry, was not held less sacred at the time the regulation took place, than when that maxim was considered as the basis of the system of exportation the most advantageous to the kingdom, and the condition (sine quâ non) of the many wonders that might be expected therefrom, towards an increase of wealth.⸺Yet if there exist a regulation calculated to operate in diametrical opposition to the sacred maxim, it is clearly the freedom of the corn trade; to be convinced of this truth, one need but attend to its effect in France. The little success I have met with in my endeavours to come, in this respect, at some particulars which might perhaps have given me a few ideas, confines me to what I can gather from recollection; but with truth I can say that my memory seldom deceives me on the abstracts it presents to my mind. The reader may perceive, that the summary I now stand in need of, has no manner of connexion with the little springs that were put in play to ruin the author of the scheme; the chief and true point, is, that all secret intrigues, all public combinations, ended only in occasioning a reform in what was deemed abusive, in a regulation the advantages of which were fully demonstrated; and that the price of wheat, after having tertiated, doubled, trebled perhaps by the help of the forestallers, from whose abilities were expected the repeal of the law and the fall of its devisers, was fixed at last between one half and three fourths above the price, as it was upon the medium of ten years preceding the regulation. It is easily conceived that the price of wheat dictated that of all other commodities; in effect, previous to the last war, the only decisive period in the present point, the nominal revenue of the lands in France, increased by one half at least of what it was 15 years before;—then, commodities were, upon the whole, dearer by one half; yet the maxim was held sacred still, and is not less so at the present time—in England as well as in France;—nevertheless I can see no medium; either the maxim is absurd in itself, or French industry has lost one third of its benefits by a regulation which tertiated, almost suddenly, the price of all productions in France.

Secondly, In order that industry may be said to have lost that third, the increase of revenue, yielded by the land to its proprietor, must have been cast into some national vortex, or sent into some foreign one, or concealed in the earth by the suspicious proprietor; for if the surplus of the landed revenue has occasioned a greater demand for and consumption of the products of industry, and more culture of the land, industry, by raising the price of her goods on the very first increase of the demand, has obtained in the first year, her first share in that accession of wealth; and she could not miss the second, so soon as a larger sum of savings bestowed upon the lands, had brought about what they never fail to produce, I mean, more productions, and soon after a greater demand for goods, and soon after again more goods to answer the additional demands.

Thirdly, If that sudden advance in the price of provisions, ended only in an increase almost equally sudden in the price of the products of industry, there could not be then any inconvenience, either to industry or agriculture, in a sudden and proportionate rise which preserved the former equilibrium, and presented the same correspondence between the two revenues; (the only thing that can materially affect the two capitalists, though neither of them think about it.)

Fourthly, If there has been no inconvenience in so considerable but proportionable increase in the prices, coming from agriculture, where could be the inconvenience in a proportioned increase, equally sudden and general if it should come from industry?

Fifthly, What difference can there be between a regulation which raises the landed revenue in a kingdom, from 6 to 9, followed by a re-action in industry, which raises equally to 9 what usually went for 6; and another regulation which would begin the same operation in industry, and should be equally followed by a proportionable re-action in agriculture?

Sixthly, When, by a regulation respecting the corn, industry is at liberty to enhance the price of her goods, in the same proportion as the effects of the regulation have raised the products of agriculture, cannot a regulation that concerns or imposes taxes, and by which industry is forced to increase her prices by the full amount of the taxes,—cannot such a regulation, I say, permit the cultivator, without inconvenience, to advance the price of the productions of the earth, in the same proportion as the taxes, or the regulation concerning them, have increased that of the products of industry?

Seventhly, Let us suppose that the operation is effected, and followed by the sum of money which a nominal revenue, grown more considerable, requires for the circulation; can there exist then the most trifling difference between the present state of any individuals in the nation, and the state they were in previous to their being loaded with that enormous burden, called taxes?

Eighthly, If after enquiry, the only answer that could be given should be a negative, would it not be profitable to let the public into the secret, in order that after having observed a very singular analogy between a young nymph loaded with a column of several thousand pounds weight of air, each of them as heavy as if it were of lead, and the French as well as the English loaded annually, constantly, in the same manner, the one with 600 millions of livres Tournois, the other with 14 or 15 millions of pounds sterling, they should be led further to observe, with what agility, what graces, what sprightliness, the young dancer plays with her load—“trips it along on the fantastic toe,” and with what grimaces, what groans, what lamentations, the two vigorous nations shrink under a burden which is not more sensible than air, from the instant that it is as perfectly divided?

I must here go some steps back: