On the Different Progress of Opulence in Different Nations
Chapter 1: On the Natural Progress of Opulence
Smith begins book 3 by making the observation that all commerce in civilised society is made between the inhabitants of the city and the country, in the exchange of rude produce for manufactured produce. He says that towns claim all of their wealth from the country, though the wealth of both is reciprocal, one cannot flourish without the other. This may be linked to a form of social contract.
The more surplus produce the country provides, the larger the town can become, which means that the town’s market improves.
Smith puts great stock into owning land, he sees it as a safe, sure investment. Provided you know what you’re doing. He compares the buying and cultivating of land as a safe bet, land does not move, and you can keep an eye on it, as opposed to traders who spend money on goods and are forced to pay travel expenses and could lose it in a storm or robbery, or simply mistakes.
He describes how towns, and therefore markets, are formed. They begin with farms, as land cannot be moved, workmen and artificers (smiths, bakers etc) come to the farm to trade with the farms. And all involved have need of each other, they support themselves. As time goes on, more settle and villages and towns begin to form. As more people settle, the demand for employment and subsistence rises and can only be met by a rise in produce conducive to this. This means that more land must be cultivated and improved to enlarge the town and better the market.
In countries such as N. America where there were large amounts of available land, it was cheaper and easier to become a farmer, so many chose to stop being an artificer of some kind, and buy land. Making himself independent and able to make more profit for himself. In lands where there is no uncultivated land the artificer must instead work to sell his goods further afield. Which, being harder, means he must refine the quality of his work, making them more desirable, and more sought after. Smith seems to think that both of these outcomes are of great benefit as more land supports larger towns and markets, and higher quality manufactures increases demand in the markets.
Smith then mentions foreign trade as the height of the growth of society. Foreign trade greatly boost a countries opulence as it allows it to exchange surplus produce (which would be wasted at home) for other good for which there is a demand. This can be especially beneficial if the exportation is paid for by the traders.
Smith concludes the chapter by noting that, following the natural order, growing societies invest capital first in agriculture, followed by manufacture, then in foreign trade. Trade being the best step on the path to greatest opulence.
Chapter 2: On the Discouragement of Agriculture in the ancient State of Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire
Smith uses the fall of the Roman Empire as a case study for how agriculture became discouraged. Western Europe was put into poverty, and all lands were seized by various ‘barbarians’ that had defeated the Romans. Smith notes how the natural law of succession, property is divided among families. But in cases when land must be used as a means of protection and power (in the case of castles for instance), it was ridiculous to break it up “to divide was to ruin”, and the law of primogeniture began to come into force, meaning that the oldest son would inherit all lands.
Smith also comments on how primogeniture has continued to be respected in may places but that it goes against the interests of the family as a whole. One cannot be rich without beggaring the rest. (modest proposal - beggars?)
The ‘great proprietors’ or ‘petty princes’ of this age, had no time for the cultivation of land as there were almost constantly at war. If he was able to, he would rarely have the knowledge or inclination to do much of use. At this time it was better to spend what money you had on acquiring new land as it is much harder to improve the value of existing land as it is too costly. A modern day example could be the aristocratic families of Britain that can trace their lines for hundreds of years but many are virtually penniless from trying to keep up their estates over the years.
Those under the princes were a kind of serf that was bound to the land, anything done on it belonged to the prince. Smith makes a point here that slavery can end up costing you the most money. Though you are not required to pay them he wrote: “A person who can acquire no property, can have no other interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little as possible”. this would result in terrible quality of produce. Compared to this, a type of farmer called ‘metayers’ in France, who had a share of the produce with the landowner and therefore had a vested interest in the quality of produce.
Generally, the ancient policy pf Europe was unfavourable to the improvement and cultivation of land. Many laws actively restricted improvement of land (taillage), and corn laws put massive restraints upon commerce (especially in Italy, the most fertile land in Europe and the seat of a great empire suffered greatly under these laws, so the effect on less favourably positioned countries would have been crippling). Although, England was on the whole favourable to the yeomanry and may have accounted in some ways to the grandeur of England, in those times.
Chapter 3: On the Rise and Progress of Cities and Towns after the Fall of the Roman Empire
After the fall of the Roman empire, the towns and cities were not much better than the country. The proprietors lived in fortified castles on their estates in the midst of their tenants and dependants for the sake of a common defence. Generally, the people in these towns were very poor and would travel between towns selling goods. These people were then taxed by landowners for passage through their estates or over their bridges etc. Occasionally, lords would grant frequent traders an exemption from paying every time. Though they would pay an annual tax. Like a season ticket allowing travel through their domains. Originally, farms were leased to burghers for them to become farmers. The leases staring at only a few years, but as time passed, they became longer until they became perpetual, as well as any privileges that came with them (giving away daughters in marriage, having their children succeed them), this allowed them to become free and independent.
As these towns grew, the inhabitants were made into a community, given privileges such as voting, and formed councils that could make local laws. In return for this they were expected to defend their towns. Thus binding them together and granting them some sort of protection.
Sovereigns at this point, were not able to defend the great majority of their subjects, and many towns were plundered by neighbouring lords. The princes often united against these lords with the burghers as they had more to gain from their support as that of the lords. The burghers were given powers to protect themselves against the lords. As a result, many towns had private militias and as they grew, many became independent republics, such as those of pre-renaissance Italy (Florence, Milan, Naples etc). You could argue that the way in which the kings sided with the towns against the lords was a very Machiavellian manoeuvre. By siding with the weaker sides (the towns) they had more to gain from the lords’ loss. In some cases though, this did not work out as the towns became so independent that the sovereign was not able to impose any taxes.
All cities rely on the country for subsistence, unless they had access to foreign trade i.e. through a port-town. The commerce of most of Europe consisted chiefly of the exchange of rude fore manufactured produce from more civilised nations. In such a way as described in Addison’s ‘Foreign Exchange’. Wool was traded for wines from France etc.
Manufactures which are fit for distant sale have been introduced in 2 ways:
By the imitating of foreign practices. Immigrants come to the country and set up their trade. Silk, Flanders cloth etc.
By gradual refinement of manufacture. Workmen settle in areas of large amounts of land which have no easy way of exportation, as a result they work closely with local cultivators, each improving through the other. Manufacturers honing their craft until it is good enough to be worth selling to distant markets.
Chapter 4: How the Commerce of the Towns Contributed to the Improvement of the Country.
Smith begins by saying how the increase in riches of commercial and manufacturing towns contributed to the improvement and cultivation of the countries to which they belonged, in 3 different ways:
Firstly, by providing a market for rude produce, they improved cultivation and further improvement, which extended to all countries associated with. Though the home country made most profit because they had no need to pay transport.
Secondly, the wealth of city people was usually spent on uncultivated land. Merchants especially were adept at this as they knew how to make profit better than the average country gent.
Thirdly, commerce and manufactures gradually introduced order and government as well as security for the inhabitants.
Land which have no foreign trade or fine manufactures tend to have lords that are particularly generous with their subjects as they can do nothing with their surplus produce other than buy loyalty with it. Kings had very little power as opposed to lords and barons who governed their own people. He was only good as a figurehead to unite them in case of potential war.
Feudal law may have been an attempt of the kings to moderate the power of the lords by establishing lines of subordination which all ran to the kings, however this did not help them as it neither weakened the lords nor strengthened the kings enough to make a difference.
Smith seems disgusted with what he calls the childish vanity of great proprietors. Rather than spending capital on 1000s of men, they might buy frivolous things for themselves. This “vile maxim” resulted in greedy lords stripping workers from farms to try and make maximum profit whilst having to pay less, as well as raising rents. These raised rents caused the leases to become virtually indefinite, giving tenants almost complete independence. This, coupled with wasting money on trinkets caused the lords to begin losing power until they were not able to provide the protection and security they had upheld.
This caused a government to be formed which was able to control the population more closely, and take much from commerce. Smith is against this as he believes it makes trade less efficient. In his view, all governments should do is maintain peace. As wars dry up wealth and revenue from commerce. Commerce encourages peace as you have to be civil with those you wish to trade with.
A Modest Proposal - Jonathan Swift
Swift’s ‘Proposal’ could be seen a response to the result of the kind of treatment the poorer people were subjected to in situation such as those mentioned by Smith.
It begins with a realistic description of the situation of the Irish, it seems to be trying to make the reader feel compassion towards these people. He gives a description of the problems the Ireland is suffering from, mainly overpopulation, and beggary. He talks of how a use needs to be found for these children “For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land” (the 2 main fields of commerce as mentioned by Smith).
As it continues it begins to get very impersonal “a child just dropped from its dam”, perhaps in preparation for when he reveals his intention. Yet at the same time he denounces the “horrid practice” of abortion, noting that it is probably for financial reasons.
After several more chapters, he gets to the point where he begins discussing the eating of children, and it’s clear we are not to take him literally. In which case it’s more about seeing what he does mean. as he continues he attacks the reasons that got the Irish to this point, saying that they have driven them to this point. Satirising it in the way he writes of fattening up the Irish for the rich, in his case, he is talking about the children. But it seems to be a stab at the way the wealthy have used, and abused them (the pale). He mentions how the families of the children would benefit their landlords, as he could use them to his own gain, once more in the same ways talked about by Smith.
Swift also uses stereotypes possibly to a comic effect. If his wife has a child worth 8 shillings then an Irishman would be less likely to abuse her.
Towards the end, begins listing problems that he seems to have discounted, but it may be that he is suggesting them as obvious ways to help the situation. Buying local produce to boost the economy, taxing landowners and presumably putting the money back into the society. And getting people to love their country, about which he says, “wherein we differ even from Laplanders”. He does invite others to come up with their own ideas, probably as a way of stimulating actual thought.
Though the entire proposal is not to be taken literally, it is interesting that he assumes the Irish people would have no problem with his solution. Obviously we don’t expect the Irish to eat their children willingly. I think he is showing that their situation is so bad, that they would be willing to endure most anything to improve their quality of life.
