But the great error into which in this matter Adam Smith andhis school have fallen is that which we have already beforeindicated, but which can be here more clearly shown, viz.that hedid not clearly recognise the influence of manufactures on theincrease of rents, on the market value of landed property itself,and on the agricultural capital, and did not state this by anymeans to its full extent, but, on the contrary, has drawn acomparison between agriculture and manufactures in such a mannerthat he would to a make it appear that agriculture is far morevaluable and important nation than manufactures, and that theprosperity resulting from it is far more lasting than theprosperity resulting from the latter.Adam Smith in so doing merelysanctioned the erroneous view of the physiocratic school, althoughin a somewhat modified manner.He was evidently misled by thecircumstance that -- as we have already demonstrated by thestatistical conditions of England -- the material agriculturalcapital is (even in the richest manufacturing country) ten totwenty times more important than the material manufacturingcapital; in fact, even the annual agricultural productiOn farexceeds in value the total manufacturing capital.The samecircumstance may also have induced the physiocratic school toover-estimate the value of agriculture in comparison withmanufactures.Superficially considered, it certainly appears as ifagriculture enriches a country ten times more, and consequentlydeserves ten times more consideration, and is ten times moreimportant to the State than manufactures.This, however, is merelyapparent.If we investigate the causes of this agriculturalprosperity to their basis, we find them principally in theexistence of manufactures.It is those 218 millions ofmanufacturing capital which have principally called into existencethose 3,311 millions of agricultural capital.The sameconsideration holds good as respects means of transport; it is themoney expended in constructing them which has made those landswhich are within the reach of the canals more valuable.If themeans of transport along a canal be destroyed, we may use the waterwhich has been hitherto employed for transport, for irrigatingmeadows -- apparently, therefore, for increasing agriculturalcapital and agricultural rents, &c.; but even supposing that bysuch a process the value of these meadows rose to millions, thisalteration, apparently profitable to agriculture, will neverthelesslower the total value of the landed property which is within reachof the canal ten times more.
Considered from this point of view, from the circumstance thatthe total manufacturing capital of a country is so small incomparison with its total agricultural capital, conclusions must bedrawn of a totally different character from those which the presentand preceding school have drawn from it.The maintenance andaugmentation of the manufacturing power seem now, even to theagriculturist, the more valuable, the less capital as compared withagriculture it requires to absorb in itself and to put intocirculation.Yes, it must now become evident to the agriculturist,and especially to the rent-owners and the landed proprietors of acountry, that it would be to their interest to maintain and developan internal manufacturing power, even had they to procure therequisite capital without hope of direct recompense; just as it isto their interest to construct canals, railways, and roads even ifthese undertakings yield no real nett profit.Let us apply theforegoing considerations to those industries which lie nearest andare most necessary to agriculture, e.g.flour mills; and there willbe no room for doubt as to the correctness of our views.Compare,on the one hand, the value of landed property and rent in adistrict where a mill is not within reach of the agriculturist,with their value in those districts where this industry is carriedon in their very midst, and we shall find that already this singleindustry has a considerable effect on the value of land and onrent; that there, under similar conditions of natural fertility,the total value of the land has not merely increased to double, butto ten or twenty times more than the cost of erecting the millamounted to; and that the landed proprietors would have obtainedconsiderable advantage by the erection of the mill, even if theyhad built it at their common expense and presented it to themiller.The latter circumstance, in fact, takes place every day inthe backwoods of North America, where, in cases when an individualhas not adequate capital to erect such works entirely at his ownexpense, the landowner gladly helps him by contributing labour, byteam work, free gifts of timber, &c.In fact, the same thing alsooccurred, although in another form, in countries of earliercivilisation; here must undoubtedly be sought the origin of manyancient feudal 'common mill' rights.
As it is in the case of the corn mill, so is it in those ofsaw, oil, and plaster mills, so is it in that of iron works;everywhere it can be proved that the rent and the value of landedproperty rise in proportion as the property lies nearer to theseindustries, and especially according as they are in closer or lessclose 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?
