We see, at least, everywhere that rent and value of landed propertyrise in exactly the same proportion with the proximity of thatproperty to the town, and with the degree in which the town ispopulous and industrious.If in such comparatively small districtswe calculate the value of the landed property and the capitalexpended thereon, and, on the other hand, the value of the capitalemployed in various industries, and compare their total amount, weshall find everywhere that the former is at least ten times largerthan the latter.But it would be folly to conclude from this thata nation obtains greater advantages by investing its materialcapital in agriculture than in manufactures, and that the former isin itself more favourable to the augmentation of capital than thelatter.The increase of the material agricultural capital dependsfor the most part on the increase of the material manufacturingcapital; and nations which do not recognise this truth, howevermuch they may be favoured by nature in agriculture, will not onlynot progress, but will retrograde in wealth, population, culture,and power.
We see, nevertheless, how the proprietors of rent and of landedproperty not unfrequently regard those fiscal and politicalregulations which aim at the establishment of a nativemanufacturing power as privileges which serve merely to enrich themanufacturers, the burden of which they (the landed interest) haveexclusively to bear.They, who at the beginning of theiragricultural operations so clearly perceived what great advantagesthey might obtain if a corn mill, a saw mill, or an iron work wereestablished in their neighbourhood, that they themselves submittedto the greatest sacrifices in order to contribute towards theerection of such works, can no longer, when their interests asagriculturists have somewhat improved, comprehend what immenseadvantages the total agricultural interest of the country wouldderive from a perfectly developed national industry of its own, andhow its own advantage demands that it should submit to thosesacrifices without which this object cannot be attained.Ittherefore happens, that, only in a few and only in verywell-educated nations, the mind of each separate landed proprietor,though it is generally keenly enough alive to those interests whichlie close at hand, is sagacious enough to appreciate those greaterones which are manifest to a more extended view.
It must not, moreover, be forgotten that the popular theory hasmaterially contributed to confuse the opinions of landedproprietors.Smith and Say endeavoured everywhere to represent theexertions of manufacturers to obtain measures of protection asinspirations of mere self-interest, and to praise, on the contrary,the generosity and disinterestedness of the landed proprietors, whoare far from claiming any such measures for themselves.It appears,however, that the landed proprietors have merely become mindful ofand been stimulated to the virtue of disinterestedness, which is sohighly attributed to them, in order to rid themselves of it.For inthe greatest number of, and in the most important, manufacturingstates, these landowners have also recently demanded and obtainedmeasures of protection, although (as we have shown in anotherplace) it is to their own greatest injury.If the landedproprietors formerly made sacrifices to establish a nationalmanufacturing power of their own, they did what the agriculturistin a country place does when he makes sacrifices in order that acorn mill or an iron forge may be established in his vicinity.Ifthe landed proprietors now require protection also for theiragriculture, they do what those former landed proprietors wouldhave done if, after the mill has been erected by their aid, theyrequired the miller to help in cultivating their fields.Withoutdoubt that would be a foolish demand.Agriculture can onlyprogress, the rent and value of land can only increase, in theratio in which manufactures and commerce flourish; and manufacturescannot flourish if the importation of raw materials and provisionsis restricted.This the manufacturers everywhere felt.For thefact, however, that the landed proprietors notwithstanding obtainedmeasures of protection in most large states, there is a doublereason.Firstly, in states having representative government, thelandowner's influence is paramount in legislation, and themanufacturers did not venture to oppose themselves perseveringly tothe foolish demand of the landowners, fearing lest they mightthereby incline the latter to favour the principles of free trade;they preferred to agree with the landed proprietors.
