The Causes of the slow Progress of Opulence

It is surprising for nations to continue to be poor for so long when we consider the immediate effects of the division of labour in improving the arts.

This is caused by natural impediments and the oppression by the government.

Lack of Division of Labor or Teamwork

A barbarous people are ignorant of the effects of the division of labour. It takes a long time before a person can produce more than is necessary for his daily subsistence.

Before labour can be divided, some accumulation of stock is necessary, A poor man with no stock can never begin a manufacture.

Before a man can be a farmer, he must at least have laid in a year’s provision because he does not receive the fruits of his labour until the season’s end.

In a nation of hunters or shepherds, no one can quit his employment until he has some stock to maintain him and begin the new trade.

Everyone knows how difficult it is, even in a refined society, to raise one’s self to moderate circumstances. It is still more difficult to raise one’s self by those trades which require no art nor ingenuity.

A porter or day-labourer must continue poor forever.

In the beginnings of society, this is still more difficult.

A savage can only procure bare subsistence as he has no stock to begin with. He only has his own strength to maintain him and so he continues long in an indigent state.

The meanest labourer in a polished society has an advantage over a savage=

• he has more assistance in his labour.
• he has only one thing to do. By assiduity, he becomes able to to perform it well.
• he has machines and instruments to assist him.

An Indian has his own labour and a pick-axe, spade, or shovel.

This is one great cause of the slow progress of opulence in every country. Until some stock is produced, there can be no division of labour. Before a division of labour take place, there can be very little accumulation of stock.

Violent Governments

The violent civil government is the biggest obstacle to the progress of opulence.

In society’s infancy, government is weak and feeble. It takes a long time before it can protect the industry of individuals from the rapacity of their neighbours.

When people find themselves in danger of being robbed of everything, they have no motive to be industrious. There could be little accumulation of stock. The indolent would be the greatest number and would live off of the industrious and spend whatever they produced.

When the government’s power becomes so great as to defend the produce of industry from its citizens, foreign invaders become the next problem. There are perpetual wars among neighbouring barbarous nations which plunder each other. In this way, it is still nearly impossible to accumulate stock.

There are always more violent convulsions among savage nations than among advanced ones. Among the Mongols and Arabs, great bands of barbarians are always roaming in quest of plunder. They pillage every country as they go along. Large tracts of country are often laid waste and all the effects carried away. Germany too was in the same condition around the fall of the Roman Empire.

We shall next consider the effect of oppressive measures on agriculture and commerce.

Of all the arts, agriculture is the most beneficent to society. Whatever retards its improvement is extremely prejudicial to the public interest.

The produce of agriculture is much greater than that of any other manufacture.

• The rents of the whole lands in England amounts to about 24 million.
• The rent is generally around 1/3 of the produce.
• The whole annual produce of the lands must be around 72 million.

This is much more than the produce of the linen or woollen manufactures.

• The annual consumption is around 100 million.
• If you deduct the 72 million produce of agriculture, only 28 million will be left for all the other manufactures of the nation.

Whatever discourages agriculture are extremely prejudicial to the progress of opulence.

Engrossment of Land

One great hindrance to agriculture is the throwing great tracts of land into the hands of single persons. If any man’s estate is more than he is able to cultivate, a part of it is lost.

When a nation of savages conquers a country, the powerful divide the whole lands among them and leave none for the lower ranks of people. In this way, the Celts and the Saxons took possession of Britain.

When land is divided in big portions among the powerful, it is cultivated by slaves which is a very unprofitable method of cultivation.

The labour of a slave proceeds only from the dread of punishment. If he could escape this, he would not work at all.

If he exerts himself in the most extraordinary manner, he cannot expect any reward. He has no encouragement to industry since all the produce of his labour goes to his master.

A young slave might exert himself a little at first, to attain his master’s favour. But he soon finds that it is all in vain and that he will always get the same severe treatment no matter what his behaviour is. Therefore, when lands are cultivated by slaves, they cannot be greatly improved, as they have no motive to industry.

A cultivation by villains is of the same kind. The landlord gives a man land to cultivate and allows him to maintain himself by it and give back anything in excess. This was equally unfavourable to agriculture as the villains, who were a kind of slaves, had no motive to industry but their own maintenance.

The West Indies have been cultivated and greatly improved by slaves. But they might have been cultivated by freemen more cheaply. The planters could not have supported the expense of slaves if the sugar profits weren’t very great. But their profits have been so enormous, that the extraordinary expense of slave cultivation has vanished before it.

In the northern colonies, they employ few slaves which are in a very flourishing condition. The lands are generally cultivated by the proprietors. This method is the most favourable to agriculture.

The best tenant always:

• has a rent to pay, and
• has much less to lay out on improvements.

When a country sends out a colony, it can prevent a single person from acquiring a large tract of land. But when savages seize a country, the strongest man takes most of the land and agriculture declines.

Steel bow tenants succeeded villains. They had no stock and no encouragement to lay it out on improvements. The landlord gave them a farm with stock, in exchange for 50% of the produce at the end of the year.

This method always was unfavourable to agriculture because it deprived the tenant of 50% of the produce, just as tithes hinder improvement by depriving the farmer of 10% of his produce.

Most of France is still cultivated by steel bow tenants. It still remains in some parts of the Highlands of Scotland.

Our present tenants created a new kind of cultivation. Some steel bow tenants, by extreme pinching and cunning, acquired a small stock. They offered their masters a fixed rent, instead of 50%. In time, this became the norm, but it was liable to inconveniences for a long time.

If the landlord sold his land, the new proprietor was not bound to the terms of the agreement and the tenant was often kicked out. The landlord also invented a method to get rid of the tenant when he pleased by selling the estate to another. He had a back bond to the buyer to make him return the estate whenever the tenants were kicked out.

The tenants had no motive to improve the ground because they were continually in danger of being kicked out. This takes place to this day in every European country, except Britain. Contracts of this kind were rendered as real rights:

• in Scotland, under James III, and
• in England, under Henry VII.

Besides these, there were several other impediments to the progress of agriculture.

Initially, all rents were paid in kind so that in a dear year, the tenants were in danger of being ruined. A tenant who paid rent in money would be seldom hurt because grain prices rise in proportion to its scarcity. Society, however, must be considerably advanced before money is used for all payments.

Another embarrassment was that the feudal lords sometimes allowed the king to levy subsidies from their tenants which greatly discouraged their industry. Under the tyranny of the feudal aristocracy, the landlords could=

• squeeze their tenants and
• raise the rents as high as they pleased.

England is better secured from this than any country. Everyone who holds but 40 shillings a year for life has a vote for a member of parliament. This vote secures him from oppression if he rents a farm.

Several circumstances concurred to continue land engrossment=

• The right of primogeniture hindered estates from being divided and was established early
• The institution of entails, present even today
• The embarrassment of the feudal law in transferring property