In a country which exports raw produce, wages may be lowered by such non-residence. If an Irish landlord resides on hisestate, he requires the services of certain persons, who must also be resident there, to minister to his daily wants. He musthave servants, gardeners, and perhaps gamekeepers. If he build a house, he must employ resident masons and carpenters;part of his furniture he may import, but the greater part of it must be made in his .neighbourhood; a portion of his land, or,what comes to the same thing, a portion of his rent, must be employed in producing food, clothing, and shelter for all thesepersons, and for those who produce that food, clothing and shelter. If he were to remove to England, all these wants wouldbe supplied by Englishmen. The land and capital which was formerly employed in providing the maintenance of Irishlabourers, would be employed in producing corn and cattle to be exported to England to provide the subsistence of Englishlabourers. The whole quantity of commodities appropriated to the use of Irish labourers would be diminished, and thatappropriated to the use of English labourers increased, and wages would, consequently, rise in England, and fall in Ireland.
It is true that these effects would not be coextensive with the landlord's income. While, in Ireland, he must have consumedmany foreign commodities. He must have purchased tea, wine, and sugar, and other things which the climate and themanufactures' of Ireland do not afford, and he must have paid for them by sending corn and cattle to England. It is true,also, that while in Ireland he probably employed a portion of his land and of his rents for other purposes, from which thelabouring population received no benefit, as a deer park, or a pleasure garden, or in the maintenance of horses or hounds.
On his removal, that portion of his land which was a. park would be employed, partly in producing exportablecommodities, and partly in producing subsistence for its cultivators; and that portion which fed horses for his use might beemployed in feeding horses for exportation. The first of these alterations would do good; the second could do no harm.
Nor must we forget that, through the cheapness of conveyance between England and Ireland, a portion, or perhaps all, ofthose whom he employed in Ireland might follow him to England and, in that case, wages in neither country would beaffected. The fund for the maintenance of labourers in Ireland, and the number of labourers to be maintained, would bothbe equally diminished, and the fund for the maintenance of labourers in England, and the number of labourers to bemaintained, would both be equally increased.
But after ****** all these deductions, and they are very great, from the supposed effect of the absenteei** of the Irishproprietors on the labouring classes in Ireland, I cannot agree with Mr. M'Culloch that it is immaterial. I cannot but join inthe general opinion that their return, though it would not affect the prosperity of the British empire, considered as a whole,would be immediately beneficial to Ireland, though perhaps too much importance is attached to it.
In Mr. M'Culloch's celebrated examination before the committee on the state of Ireland, (4th Report, 814, Sess. 1825,)hewas asked, 'Supposing the largest export of Ireland were in live cattle, and that a considerable portion of rent had beenremitted in that manner, does not such a mode of producing the means of paying rent contribute less to the improvement ofthe poor than any extensive employment Of them in labour would produce?' -- He replies, 'Unless the means of paying rentare changed when the landlord goes home, his .residence can have no effect whatever.
'Would not,' he is asked, 'the population of the country be benefited by the expenditure among them of a certain portion ofthe rent which (if he had been absent) has (would have) been remitted (to England)?' 'No,' he replies, 'I do not see how itcould be benefited in the least. If you have a certain value laid out against Irish commodities in the one case, you will havea certain value laid out against them in the other. The cattle are either exported to England, or they stay at home. If theyare exported, the landlord will obtain an equivalent for them in English commodities; if they are not, he will obtain anequivalent for them in Irish commodities; so that in both cases the landlord lives on the cattle, or on the value of the cattle: and whether he lives in Ireland or in England, there is obviously just the very same amount of commodities for the peopleof Ireland to subsist upon.'
This reasoning assumes that the landlord, while resident in Ireland, himself personally devours all the cattle produced on hisestates; for on no other supposition can there be the very same amount of commodities for the people of Ireland to subsistupon, whether their cattle are retained in Ireland or exported.
But when a country does not export raw produce, the consequences of absenteei** are very different. Those who derivetheir incomes from such a country cannot possibly spend them abroad until they have previously spent them at home.
