share, leaving for the farmer, &c. one hundred and twenty-five, instead of fifty, the usual sum.  As the wages of servants remained the same, and, in an ordinary year, would amount to one-third of the rent, eight millions went for that, leaving one-hundred and seventeen millions, in place of forty-two, the usual residue.  Two-thirds of the value of rent, or sixteen millions, is, in an ordinary year, supposed to go for seed, the maintenance of cattle, and labourers; so that, in that year, the portion so consumed must be estimated at double value, or thirty-four millions, which, deducted from one hundred and seventeen, leaves eighty-three for the farmers, in place of twenty-five, in an ordinary year:  so that, when the price doubles, the farmers =sic= profit does more than triple.  In the year 1799, the farmers were known to have the profit of four ordinary years, supposing that they had been the actual sellers in the market.  The fact was otherwise no doubt, with regard to those who pocketed the profit, which went in part only to farmers, and the rest went to the monopolists, dealers, regraters, forestallers, &c. who advanced money to keep up the price.  To the public who paid, the matter is the same, and, to the business itself, there is little difference as to who profited, or who found capital; for, as they shared the profit amongst them, and as they received three times as much as in an ordinary year, they could, out of the sales of the first four or five months, make all the payments [end of page #153] for the whole year to the landlord; and, therefore, could have the means of keeping the remainder, just as long as they thought proper.

Thus, then, while there is any degree of scarcity, the provisions of a country are at a monopoly-price; and the dealers act, though individually, as if they enjoyed one general monopoly. {130}

Before leaving his important subject, it is necessary to observe, that, though dealers in provisions, in times of any degree of scarcity, that is, when there is not quite enough fully to supply the consumption of the country, act, in keeping up prices, as if they had an exclusive privilege for monopoly, yet that is the only cases =sic= in which they do so.  A single monopolizer can diminish the quantity, and perhaps destroy a part of it with advantage to himself.  Thus the Dutch East India company were said to have done with the spices. {131} But the individual dealer, though he is interested in a general high price and monopoly, is still more interested in selling as much as he can; and the higher the price, the more careful he is not to waste or consume more than he can help.  In this respect, the monopoly of the many is not half so hurtful as the individual monopoly.  This proves that all the vulgar errors, which occasion reports of farmers and dealers destroying their corn, are not only without foundation, but would produce an effect quite contrary to the avaricious principle, by which such men are considered as being governed. {132}