« PreviousContinue »
raised with it.
CHA P. Poivre, sugar is raised, for a great part of the Empire of
China, by free labourers assisted by the plough*.
140. I have dwelt the more particularly on this head, as tropical articles may be I deem it of the utmost importance to every new colony in
the tropical regions of Africa. I refer chiefly to the British sugar islands, because the evidence, taken by the British Privy Council and House of Commons, furnishes a body of information far more extensive than any that I have seen respecting the colonies of any other European state. And I have confined my observations entirely to the sugar cane; because, if it can be proved that the very laborious culture of that strong, succulent plant can be, and actually is, carried on by means of the plough, it's utility in all, or almost all, other kinds of tropical cultivation will scarcely be denied. Knowing, as I do by experience, that men cannot safely undergo the same labour in hot as in cold or temperate climates, I cannot but be solicitous that the labour of cattle should be introduced, as early as possible, into every new colony that may be formed in Africa. Without it, I am truly sorry to predict, what every man, acquainted with the circumstances, must foresee, that the colonists, though free and protected from lawless violence, will soon sink into a state of degrading drudgery which will ruin their constitutions, and, in truth, render them, in one material particular, as wretched as West Indian slaves.
141. On the contrary, let the founders of a new colony early provide such regulations, as will proportionably divide the labour between cattle, men, women, and young persons, and all the lamentable consequences of it's unequal distribution will be prevented.
“ For it has been comput
* Observations sur les Arts en Alie, &c. p. 100.
CH A P.
cd, by political arithmeticians, that if every man and wo-
N. B. By money, or coin, in the following queries, I beg leave to understand
I. In all communities, are there not two things, which have the most intimate connection with one another, viz. money and commodities?
II. Are not commodities essential to the existence of every community, and is not money merely accidental: or in other
CHAP words, Is it not practicable for a community to carry on
it's business without money, but not without commodities?
III. Qught not money therefore always to represent com. modities, and the whole circulation of money to be in dependence on the production of commodities; but not on the contrary?
IV. But do not commodities, at this day, represent money ; and does not their production depend on the circulation of money? And is not money then a production INDEPENDENT of the production of commodities?
V. May not this inversion arise from money having obtained an independent origin and circulation, uncontroled by the production of necessary and useful commodities?
VI. Are not commodities become the means for getting rich in money? But ought not money to be the means for getting rich in commodities?
VII. Is not the accumulation of money the chief end, at prefent, in every occupation, and commodities only the means?
VIII. Cannot a community, as well as an individual, as things now stand, circulate a greater or smaller stock of money independent of any production of commodities?
IX. Can a producer of commodities, at this time, extend his circulation in any degree equal to a monied man?
X. Is not money fooner turned than commodities, which can only be turned when worn out or confumed?
XI. Does not the quick return of money give the monied man an undue advantage over the producer of commodities which cannot be turned so quickly ?
XII. Are not knowing people, at this day, fooner induced to enter into money concerns, than into the produétion of commodities?
XIII. Granting the affirmative of the foregoing queries C HA P. to be true, will it not follow, that money is, at this day, separated from, and has become independent on, commodities ?
XIV. Are not all Banks, whether public or private, to be considered as forehouses of money?
XV. But should not storehouses, filled with necessary and useful commodities, be considered as the essential and intrinfic banks?
XVI. Are not those persons independent or free, in short rich, who possess storehouses of money, whether in cain, bank-notes or bills, and is not their independence in proportion to the quantity of money their storehouses contain ?
XVII. Are not those dependent or poor, who, although in possession of storehouses filled with necessary and useful commodities, yet cannot command money when required, without loss on the disposal of their goods; and are not those persons dependent and poor, in proportion as their ftock of goods exceeds their stock of money?
XVIII. Did not the nature of money alter, after the esta. blishment of the first public bank at Genoa, and after the introduction of bills of exchange and other paper-money?
XIX. Is there any other difference between money in bills of exchange, and in coined gold, filver, copper or paper, than that, to the former is granted a limited credit, paying interest or discount, and to the latter, an unlimited credit which pays no interest or discount?
XX. Is not coin, in form of guineas, louis d'ors, ducats, rix-dollars, shillings, guilders, stuivers, pence, groschen, &c. whether stamped on metals, paper, leather (or wood,) acknowledged and received as money, or credit; and is not this N 2
CH A P. coin different from, and independent of, any sort of commo
dities, even of the materials it is stamped upon, when con-
XXI. Is not money independent of commodities, in con-
XXII. Are not monopolists, and especially coiners or producers of money, compleatly independent of society; and are not producers of commodities strictly dependent on society ?
XXIII. Does not the independence of the producers of money on the producers of commodities and on society, naturally lead to an opposition of interests; and does not such opposition lead to jealousy and contention, where there should be, and, but for this unnatural state of things, would be, harmony and mutual dependence?
XXIV. Is not a tradesman a greater merchant than a horsedealer-an importer or exporter a greater merchant than a tradesman-a negociator (of bills) a greater merchant than an importer or exporter-a banker a greater merchant than a negociator-and, in short, is not the producer or coiner of money the first merchant in every state, in as much as, in all his transactions, commodities are totally out of the question; for nothing circulates with him but money which he coinS, AD LIBITUM?
XXV. Does not the facility of coming at money or credit, fupport and propagate corruption and luxury, and occafion ruinous bankruptcies?
XXVI. Is not the real want of any commodity, in a community, the only natural basis of the intrinsic value of that commodity ?