LANDLORDS' PROFIT IN IRISH IMPROVEMENTS.
iN the course of a discussion last week, on Mr. Trevelyan51 minute, an objection was started, that in carrying out improve- ments under its provisions, the landlords of Ireland would derive a profit ; and the Morning Chroniole extended that objection to other plans for the reclaiming of waste lands. For instancerit was held to be matter of complaint, that in making vast agricul- tural improvements under the minute, Lord de Freyne would add 3,000/. a year to the value of his estates. What then ? It strikes us that the objection is not only quite invalid, but that the very fact of its being uttered may be so mischievous as to demand distinct repudiation from those who are not wedded to the views of the Chronicle, so peculiarly limited on this subject. The objector seems to be grieved that the landowners should benefit %brooch the use of the public money : but, without some serious violation of the rights of property, it would be impossible to prevent them from deriving benefit from anything which tends to improve the state of Ireland. If, indeed, a corrupt use were made of public money, exclusively or even principally for their benefit, it would be a reprehensible malversation ; but their profit is beside the direct question,—which is, What would prove most advantageous to the people of Ireland and the empire at large ? If it is an incident of the plan which is advantageous on those broad grounds, that it would also be profitable to the land- lords, so much the better : that, instead of being an objection, is a recommendation. Few things could be more adverse to the success of any scheme in Ireland than the avowal that it excluded considerable advantage to the landlords : on the other hand, few things would more conciliate support than the knowledge that any scheme would redound to their profit; and it is quite certain that no legislator in these appallingly difficult matters can afford to do without any source of favourable influence.
The objection, indeed, seems to have its origin in a more deeply rooted fallacy, but one which we are sure the Morning Chronicle will disclaim. A numerous and heterogeneous class of philanthro- pic economists, among whom Mr. James K. Polk has put himself forward, descant on the evils resulting from the "unequal distri- bution" of wealth, and point to the large fortunes of England as instances. The complaint is based on the assumption that such large pioperties are accumulated at the expense of the poorer classes : but such a conclusion remains to be proved. There are other causes for the poverty in England. In all thickly-peopled countries, where land is not in excess as compared with popula- tion, it becomes essential to the welfare of the population that the art of extracting produce from the land should be continually advancing. One element in the proper cultivation of land is abundance of capital : abundance is a result of attention and skill devoted to a particular subject—to division of employ- ments—and in this case, to the amassing of capital : the motive to the amassing of capital is large (aggregate) profits from the em- ployment of capital ; hence abundance of capital presupposes the attainment of large profits, great individual fortunes. But by the use of the capital the land has been made to yield more to the labour ; the excess (above the quantity that would have been pro- duced without the capital) being shared by the capitalist and the -producer. The proportion of the shares is ascertainable: it is represented by the difference between the farmer's profits and the interest of money on all the capital employed by the farmer. The wages are the return for mere manual labour ; the interest on money is the amount that capital can obtain, as such ; the farmer's profits comprise the share of produce obtained by intelligence in directing the combinations of knowledge, materials, and labour. The use of the capital causes a higher rate of production—more to be shared all round ; and the great (aggregate) profits of capital are obtained, not at the expense of any class, but concurrently with advantage to all. The immense fortunes of England do not indicate so much the undue accumulation of wealth, as a high scale of profit throughout. In France, where we see a few for- tunes of thirty or forty thousand pounds, and where " wealth " is more "equally distributed," we observe a generally low scele of production and a very "equal distribution of poverty. The large fortunes of this country are in fact so many premiums to the arts of production. Is it desirable to deny Ireland the influence of those stimulants?
Previous page
