846

T1IK NATURK AND CAUSES OK

former, therefore, may frequently get the returns of his mo-ney as soon as the latter. But whatever inconveniency mightarise to the maltster from being obliged to advance a heaviertax, it could easily be remedied by granting him a few monthslonger credit than is at present commonly given to the brewer.

Nothing could reduce the rent and profit of barley landwhich did not reduce the demand for barley. But a changeof system, which reduced the duties upon a quarter of maltbrewed into beer and ale from twenty-four and twenty-fiveshillings to eighteen shillings, would be more likely to in-crease than diminish that demand. The rent and profit ofbarley land, besides, must always be nearly equal to those ofother equally fertile and equally well cultivated land. Ifthey were less, some part of the barley land would soon beturned to some other purpose; and if they were greater, moreland would soon be turned to the raising of barley. Whenthe ordinary price of any particular produce of land is at whatmay be called a monopoly price, a tax upon it necessarily re-duces the rent and profit of the land which grows it. A taxupon the produce of those precious vineyards, of which thewine falls so much short of the effectual demand, that itsprice is always above the natural proportion to that of theproduce of other equally fertile and equally well cultivatedland, would necessarily reduce the rent and profit of thosevineyards. The price of the wines being already the high-est that could be got for the quantity commonly sentto market,it could not be raised higher without diminishing that quan-tity; and the quantity could not be diminished without stillgreater loss, because the lands could not be turned to anyother equally valuable produce. The whole weight of thetax, therefore, would fall upon the rent and profit; properlyupon the rent of the vineyard. When it has been proposed tolay any new tax upon sugar, our sugar planters have frequentlycomplained that the whole weight of such taxes fell, not uponthe consumer, but upon the producer; they never havingbeen able to raise the price of their sugar after the tax, higherthan it was before. The price had, it seems, before the taxbeen a monopoly price ; and the argument adduced to shewthat sugar was an improper sub ject of taxation, demonstrated,perhaps, that it was a proper one ; the gains of monopolists,whenever they can be come at, being certainly of all subjectsthe most proper. But the ordinary price of barley has neverbeen a monopoly price; and the rent and profit ol barley land