Chapter 14 continue to fall

The increasing wealth of Europe, and the common belief that as the quantity of the precious metals increased with the increase of wealth, the value of the precious metals therefore decreased with the increase of the quantity of precious metals, may lead many to believe that the value of gold and silver has hitherto fallen in the European market.The fact that much of the native produce of the land is still increasing in value may, perhaps, reinforce this view. I have said before, that the quantity of precious metals which increases in proportion to the wealth of a country, has by no means tended to diminish their value.Luxuries and curiosities of all kinds, of course, collect in rich countries, and for the same reason gold and silver also naturally collect in rich countries.Not because these things are cheaper in rich countries than in poor countries, but because they are more expensive in rich countries than in poor countries, that is, they can be obtained at a better price in rich countries.The superior price attracts these goods, and once this superiority diminishes, these goods will not gather in this direction.

In addition to grains and other plants that are produced entirely by human industry, all kinds of primary products, such as livestock and poultry, such as various prey, such as useful fossils and minerals in the ground, etc., are naturally produced with the increase of social wealth and technological improvement. Tends to be expensive, which is what I've tried to say.But even if these commodities could be exchanged for more silver than before, it does not follow that the price of silver is actually lower than before, or that silver can buy a smaller quantity of labor than before.The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the prices of these commodities have actually risen, that is to say, a greater quantity of labor can be purchased than before.With the increase of wealth and the improvement of technology, not only the nominal price of these commodities has risen, but also their real price.The rise of the nominal price is not the result of the fall of the price of silver, but of the rise of the real value of the commodity itself.

The Different Effects of Social Progress on the Three Primary Products Primary products can only be divided into three categories.The produce of the first kind is almost entirely incapable of being increased by human labor; the second kind can be increased according to need; the third kind can be increased by human industry, but the effectiveness of human industry is limited or uncertain.The real prices of products of the first kind can rise without limit with the increase of wealth and the improvement of technology.The real price of the produce of the second class, though it may sometimes rise greatly, can never exceed a certain limit for a long time.Although the real price of the third class of produce rises in proportion to the degree of improvement in their natural tendency, it sometimes even falls, sometimes remains the same, and sometimes rises more or less, with the same degree of improvement. , according to how effectively the industrious efforts of human beings, made by accident, have been effective in multiplying these products.

the first sort The first kind of produce, whose price rises with the progress of society, is hardly at all increased by human industry.Since their production cannot exceed a certain amount of natural production, and their nature is so perishable, it is impossible to accumulate all the products of this kind produced in different seasons.Most of the rare and special birds and fishes, all kinds of wild birds and beasts, and all kinds of migratory birds belong to this category.With the increase of wealth, and with it the increase of luxury, the demand for these produce will likely increase, but their supply cannot be greatly increased by human power.The prices of these commodities, therefore, may rise without limit with the increasing competition of buyers.For example, even if the woodsnipe becomes a fashion item and the price rises to 20 guineas a piece, human beings cannot increase the number of woodsnipes on the market to far exceed the existing number through hard work.This is the reason why the ancient Romans paid very high prices for precious fish and birds in the most prosperous period.This high price was, indeed, not the result of the low price of silver at that time, but of the rise in value of these rarities, which could not be increased at will.In the years before and after the fall of the Roman Republic, the real value of silver was higher than in most of Europe today.The wheat which the Roman Republic titheed to Sicily paid three sesterces for every modis or peck, or about sixpence sterling.But this price was probably lower than the average market price, and the Sicilian peasants were obliged to sell their wheat at this price, which they regarded as a tax.Therefore, if the Romans needed to import grain from Sicily in addition to the tithe, they were obliged by contract to pay four sesterces, or about eightpence sterling, for every peck of the excess.This price, which was then thought proper and reasonable, that is, the average or common contract price at that time, was worth about twenty-one shillings a quarter.English wheat is inferior in quality to Sicilian wheat, and is generally cheaper than Sicilian wheat in the European market.But before the last year of famine, the common contract price was twenty-eight shillings the quarter.Therefore, comparing the price of silver in ancient times with the current price of silver, there must be an inverse ratio of three to four, that is, three ounces of silver at that time can buy the same amount of labor or commodities as compared with four ounces of silver at present.The historian Pliny records that Seias bought a white nightingale for 6,000 sesterces (50 British pounds) and dedicated it to Queen Agrippina;Senna bought a red fish for eight thousand sesterces (equivalent to sixty-six pounds, thirteen shillings and four pence today).When we read this kind of record, although these extremely expensive prices are enough to shock us, in our opinion, these prices seem to be one-third less than the real price.The real price of these two things, that is to say, the quantity of labor and food for which they exchange, is about one-third greater than what their nominal price gives us today.That is to say, the disposition of labor and food that Seias gave for a white nightingale was equal to the disposition of labor and food that can be bought today for sixty-six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence; Assinia Si.The labor and the disposition of food that Senna paid for a red fish were equal to those which can be purchased at the present day for eighty-eight pounds seventeen shillings nine and a third pence.The reason for this excessive price is not so much the abundance of silver that resulted in the low price of silver, but rather the abundance of surplus labor and surplus food of the Romans, resulting in many people vying for rare items.The amount of silver held by the Romans at that time was much smaller than the disposition of the same quantity of labor and food can obtain at the present day.

second category The second kind of raw products, whose price increases with the progress of society, can be increased in quantity according to human needs.They include those useful plants and animals, which, when the land is uncultivated, are so numerous that they are of no value, and which, as cultivation advances, have to give way to others, which are more profitable.In the long course of social progress the quantity of such products decreases, while at the same time the need for them continues to increase.Then its real value, that is to say, the real quantity of labor which it could buy or command, gradually increased, and at last increased so much that it was no different from any other crop produced by human power on the most fertile and well-cultivated land. Items are comparable.However, once this height is reached, it cannot be increased any further.If this limit should be exceeded, immediately more land and labor would be employed in the production of such articles.

For instance, if the price of cattle has risen so high that it is felt that there is as much interest in clearing the land for pasture for cattle as it is for food for man, it cannot be raised any further; converted grain fields into pastures.As a result of the expansion of cultivated land, on the one hand, the amount of wild pastures has decreased, so that the meat of domestic animals that grow naturally without labor cultivation has decreased; Increased demand for livestock meat.The price of livestock meat, then, follows.The price of cattle will gradually rise, until it will be felt that the most fertile and well-cultivated land is as profitable to produce pasture for cattle as it is to produce food for man.But it must be at a later stage of social progress that cultivation should be so extended as to raise the price of cattle to such an extent.If the country is still advancing, the price of livestock is not so high, and it will continue to rise.In Europe today, I am afraid that there are some places where the price of cattle has not risen to this limit.The same is true of a place in Scotland before the annexation.In Scotland there is much that is suitable for cattle-raising, and little that is suitable for other uses.Therefore, if the livestock there are only sold in the inland market, the price of livestock may not reach such a high level that it is beneficial to use the land to produce pasture.The price of cattle in England, as has been said, seems to have reached this limit at the beginning of the last century, in the vicinity of London, but probably much later in the more remote parts.Perhaps there are still a few places that have not reached this limit.But, of the second class of raw produce, the first whose price rises to its limit with social progress is probably cattle.

Before the price of livestock has reached this height, even the land suitable for deep and intensive cultivation will have a large part of it that cannot be fully cultivated.In countries with large land areas, the greater part of the farmland is often located in remote places, and its manure cannot be easily supplied to the dry cities. Therefore, the amount of well-cultivated land must be in proportion to the amount of manure that the farmland can produce by itself; The amount must be proportional to the number of livestock maintained by the farmland.Fertilizers are applied to the land in two ways: first, by raising animals in the field to obtain manure;However, if the price of livestock is not enough to pay the rent and profit of arable land, farmers will not be willing to graze livestock on the land, let alone set up farms to raise livestock.For the pasture needed for raising livestock must be provided on fertile and cultivated land, and the labor and expense of harvesting the scattered pasture from barren and uncultivated land must be very large. .In this way, if the livestock are grazed on the land that has been reclaimed, the price is no longer enough to cover the cost of producing grass. Then, raising the livestock on farms, harvesting and transporting the pasture will require considerable labor and expenses, and the price will certainly not be able to cover the cost of producing grass. cost.Under such circumstances, it doesn't matter if you want to set up a farm to raise the livestock necessary for farming. If you want to raise more, there is absolutely no profit at all.But if only the animals necessary for cultivation are kept, the manure obtained will never be sufficient to supply the whole of the arable land, and keep it constantly in good condition.Since the fertilizer is not enough to supply all the farmland, farmers will naturally choose the most profitable and convenient land, that is, the most fertile land near the farm yard, and fertilize. Most of the rest of the land can only be left to be barren, at most it can only be allowed to produce a few barren grasses, like lingering on the remnants of a few dying livestock.The livestock kept, though too little in comparison with the amount required for the land to be fully brought into cultivation, are often too much in comparison with the pasture which the land actually produces.A part of this barren land, after six or seven years of continuous grazing in this way, may be reclaimed, and may produce a season or two of poor oats or other poor corn.If things go on like this, the soil will be completely exhausted, and the previous state of fallow and grazing must be restored.As a result, other parts were further reclaimed. These newly reclaimed lands also produced poor grains for one or two seasons, and then the land was exhausted and returned to the original state of fallow.Before Scotland was united with England, most of the land in the lowlands was managed in this way.At that time, the land that could be maintained in good condition by continuous fertilizers often only accounted for one-third or even one-fourth of the total agricultural land, and sometimes, it was even less than one-fifth or one-sixth.The rest of the land has no fertilizer at all; however, some parts of it are reclamated successively and fallow successively according to the above-mentioned method.In Scotland, therefore, the good land which could be cultivated, is so cultivated that it produces much less than its productive powers can produce.This way of doing business is, of course, disadvantageous.But Scotland, before the union, seems to have been obliged to adopt this unfavorable mode of management because of the low cost of livestock.As to why, after the great cost of cattle, the old law remained in the greater part of the country, it is because of certain places.The people are ignorant and clinging to ancient customs, and in most places the naturalness of things does not permit immediate or hasty adoption of good methods.The obstacles are two great ones: first, that the tenants are poor, and have not yet had time to acquire enough livestock to enable them to cultivate their land more thoroughly.Their resources are limited, livestock are expensive, and although it is beneficial for them to raise more livestock, it also makes it difficult for them to buy more.Second, even if the land renter has such resources, the restoration of pastureland cannot be accomplished overnight.In short, both the increase of livestock and the improvement of the land must be carried on at the same time, not in one order or another.The land cannot be improved without an increase in the stock; nor can the stock be appreciably increased without a great improvement in the land, because a greatly increased stock cannot be maintained without a great improvement.Such natural obstacles in the process of reforming the old and creating the new cannot be eradicated without long-term diligence and thrift.Today, although the old way is gradually declining, it may take half a century or a century for it to be completely abolished in all parts of the country.Of all the commercial advantages which Scotland may derive from the union with England, the increase in the price of cattle is perhaps the greatest.The rise of cattle, not only has increased the value of estates in the uplands, but has been at the same time a chief cause of improvement in the lowlands.

In all new colonies, there is a lot of uncultivated land to be reclaimed.Such barren land cannot be used for other purposes except for raising livestock.Therefore, the cattle are not long in extreme multiplication.Where there are many items, the price must be very cheap.The livestock in the American colonies were originally brought in by Europeans from their homeland, but in a very short period of time, these livestock multiplied so much that their value became so low that the horses were thrown into the wild, and the owners left themselves to no longer pursue them. .Under such circumstances, it would be unprofitable to open up land to raise livestock.It was a long period of time after the establishment of these colonies that it was possible to gain land to raise cattle.There was a dearth of manure, and the disproportionate capital invested in cultivation for the land employed in it, so that the farming was carried on in the same manner as is still practiced in the greater part of Scotland at the present day.When the Swedish traveler Karm described the state of agriculture which he had heard in some of the English colonies in North America in 1749, he said that it was difficult to find the peculiarities of the English people there, because the English people were very different in every aspect of agriculture. is famously skilled.He also said that the local people seldom fertilize their grain fields.When a piece of land was exhausted by successive harvests, they cultivated other new lands.After the strength of this piece of land was exhausted again, they opened up a third piece of land.Their livestock are allowed to wander in the forest or uncultivated wasteland.Spring-growing pastures, because they are gnawed too early, are often destroyed before they bloom and bear fruit.Therefore, livestock are often trapped in a state of semi-starvation.Spring grass is a natural pasture in North America.When the Europeans first settled there, this pasture flourished to a height of three or four feet.Calm clearly pointed out that a piece of land that could not support one cow when he wrote his travel notes could certainly support four cows in the past, and each cow in the past could produce four times as much milk as it does now.He thought that the reason for the gradual decline of livestock in the area from generation to generation was nothing more than the lack of pasture.These animals are probably not much different from the dwarf animals that were seen in various parts of Scotland thirty or forty years ago.The great improvement of the lowland cattle of Scotland today is not so much due to the selection of the breed (though this method is used in some places) as to the abundance of fodder.

Therefore, although the price of livestock does not increase until the later stage of cultivation and improvement to make it profitable to open up land for raising livestock, it is likely that the first to reach this favorable price among the second group of primary products is livestock. For if the price of cattle had not reached this level, it would seem impossible that any improvement in cultivation would approach that which is attained in many parts of Europe at the present day. Of the native produce of the second class, the first to reach this price is cattle, and the last to reach this price is venison.The fact that the price of venison in Great Britain, though superficially high, is not sufficient to repay the expenses of the deer parks, is well known to all who have experience in keeping them.If this were not the case, it would soon become an animal kept by ordinary farmers, just like the ancient Romans kept small birds like the owl.Varro and Techmyna tell us that keeping social owls is the most profitable cause.The artemisia bird was very thin when it flew to France, and it is said that in some parts of France, it is a very profitable business to fatten it up.In short, if venison should continue to be a popular food, and the wealth and luxury of Britain should increase, as it has at some time past, the price of venison would probably be even more dear than it is at present.

A long period of time elapses in the progress of improvement from the extreme rise in the price of cattle, the necessary, to the extreme rise in the price of venison, the luxury.During this long period of time, many other kinds of native produce gradually reached their highest prices, more or less rapidly, according to each case. Thus on every farm the waste of the barn sheds will support a number of poultry.The breeding of such poultry is waste utilization and requires no special expenditure by the farmer. Therefore, the poultry is usually sold at a very low price.Almost all the farmers get from this is pure profit, and the price will not be lower, making them unwilling to raise them.In countries extensively cultivated and lightly populated, such fowls, which are kept at no expense, are often sufficient for all the wants, and are therefore often as cheap as domestic meat and all other meat.The total number of poultry raised in this way, however, would be much less than the total number of livestock meat raised on farms.A product of the same utility, but in small quantity, is often more desirable to the people of an age of opulence and luxury, than that of the same utility, in greater quantity.Consequently, as cultivation improves, and wealth and luxury increase, the price of poultry gradually exceeds the price of butcher's meat, and at last rises so high that it becomes a profitable enterprise to clear land for the raising of poultry.Once the price of poultry reaches this height, it cannot continue to rise, otherwise the land used for other purposes must be used to raise poultry.In several parts of France poultry-keeping has always been regarded as the most important industry in the rural economy, and has been so profitable that the peasants have been willing to increase the cultivation of corn and buckwheat for poultry.Medium-sized farmers sometimes raise more than 400 chickens in the house.England does not seem to have attached as much importance to poultry as France.The price of poultry, however, must be higher in England than in France, because England annually depends on France for a large quantity of poultry.In the course of improvement in cultivation, the highest price of all meat must have been just before the clearing of land for the production of such animal food became the usual practice.Before the practice became common, the price of these animals must have been increased by their scarcity, and when it had become common, new methods of cultivation had generally been discovered which enabled farmers to produce more crops on the same area of ​​land than before. Much more of this feed.If the yield is large, the farmer must not only lower the selling price, but also be able to lower the selling price, because if not, the high yield will not last for a long time.The common price of butcher's meat in the London market is probably lower today than it was at the beginning of the previous century, by the introduction of clover, turnips, carrots, cabbages, etc.

Pigs are voracious animals, not only eating dung, but also eating dirt that other useful animals dislike.Therefore, the breeding of pigs, like poultry, was originally only for waste utilization.In this way, as long as the number of pigs raised from waste can fully meet the needs, the market price of this kind of livestock meat will be much lower than that of other kinds of livestock meat.But if the need exceeds what this quantity can satisfy, in other words, if the raising of pigs, like other domestic animals, requires special feed for them, the price of pigs will inevitably rise accordingly.In the state of nature and agriculture in a country, if the cost of raising pigs is greater than that of other domestic animals, pork will be more expensive than other kinds of meat, and if it is less, pork will be more expensive than other kinds of meat. low.According to Buffon, the price of pork in France is almost the same as that of beef.In many parts of Great Britain, pork is now somewhat more expensive than beef. The high price of pigs and poultry in Great Britain is often said to be due to the decrease in the number of tenant farmers and small farmers.This reduction of numbers was an event which would have taken place before the improvement of art and cultivation in all parts of Europe, and at the same time has caused the price of these articles to rise sooner and more quickly than they would have otherwise.The poorest family can often maintain a cat or a dog at little expense.The poorest farm can, at a similarly little expense, maintain a few fowls, or a sow and pigs.They take as part of the food of these animals some scraps, whey, and dregs of the table, and leave the rest to seek for themselves in the neighboring fields without obvious injury to others.The number of animals thus produced for nothing must be greatly reduced by the reduction of the number of small farmers, and their price must rise at the same time more rapidly than if the number of small farmers had not been reduced.But sooner or later, in the process of improvement, the price of such animals will rise to the highest possible limit, or, in other words, to such a high price that the labor employed in cultivating the land which provides food for these animals and expenses, to pay the same remuneration as is paid for the labor and expense employed in the cultivation of most other cultivated land. The business of making milk was originally for waste utilization, the same as raising pigs and poultry.The cows on the farm usually produce more milk than is necessary for the feeding of the calves and the consumption of the farm, and especially more in any one season.Of all the native products of the land, however, the milk is the most perishable.Milk is rarely kept for twenty-four hours during the hot season when it is most productive.Therefore, the farmer made part of it into ox cheese and kept it for a week; part of it into salt beef cheese and kept it for a year;Farmers usually keep part of this kind of beef cheese for home use, and the rest are all shipped to the market, only looking for the best price.Even if the market price is low, it is not so low that the farmer will not supply the market with this surplus.If the market price is too low, most of the farmers will not be refined and unclean about the cheese making operation, and even do not provide another house for this kind of operation, but simply carry out it in a smoky, dirty and unclean kitchen.In fact, thirty or forty years ago in Scotland, all the dairy farming operations were like this, and even today, there are still many farms that continue to be in this state.The same causes which have made butcher's meat increasingly expensive, namely, the increased demand for butcher's meat, and the diminishment of the number of livestock which, with the reformation of agriculture, have been kept on waste, have likewise made the produce of the dairy industry more expensive.The price of the dairy product is, of course, connected with the price of butcher's meat, and with the expense of keeping it.A higher price can pay more labor, and can also promote the attention and cleanliness of the farmers to cheese making.Cheese-making became a sideline more deserving of the farmer's attention, and the quality of its product improved day by day.Finally, its price has risen so high that it is profitable to raise cattle for cheese on the best cultivated land.Once the price has reached this height, however, it cannot rise further, or else more land will immediately be diverted for this purpose.The price of cheese in the greater part of England seems to have reached this extreme limit, and there are, therefore, plenty of good land for raising cattle for the production of cheese.In all parts of Scotland, except in some places near the great cities, this limit does not seem to be attained, and the common farmer seldom has good land for raising cattle for cheese.Cheese, indeed, has been getting expensive in recent years, but the use of good land for this purpose is still not worthwhile.The quality of cheese in Scotland is generally inferior to that in England.Indeed, this poor quality is just worth the low price.However, poor quality is not the cause of low prices, but the result of low prices.Even though the quality of Scottish cheese is much better than today, in the present state of Scotland, I think, most of the cheese on the market cannot be sold at a much higher price than today.High-quality milk must cost more land and labor in production.A price like Ling Day may not be enough to compensate for such expenses.Cheese, no doubt, is dearer in many parts of England, but dairying, and the two principal operations of agriculture, the production of corn and the rearing of cattle, cannot yet be regarded as a more favorable employment of the land.So dairying is even less profitable in Scotland. In any country, if the price of all the produce of the land, which must be produced by human power, is not sufficient to repay the cost of reformation and cultivation of the land, the land of that country will never be fully cultivated and fully improved.If the land of the whole country were to be wholly cultivated and improved, the prices of the produce of every kind should, first, be sufficient to pay the rent of good corn, since the rent of most other cultivated land is diverted from the corn tax; The labor and expense of the farm-house are as well paid as a good corn-field usually gives.In other words, from this price the farmer must recover his capital, and obtain the ordinary profit on capital.The rise of the price of every produce must evidently precede the improvement of the land which produces it.Gain is the aim of all improvements, and if the inevitable result of improvement is loss, it cannot be called an improvement.But if the price of the goods produced by the improvement does not cover the cost of the improvement, the improvement must necessarily result in loss.If, therefore, the improvement and cultivation of the land of the whole country were the greatest of all public interests, the rise in the price of this kind of native produce should not be regarded as a public evil, but as the necessary precursor and accompaniment of the greatest public interest. things. The rise in the nominal or money-price of all the above-mentioned primary produce is not the result of the fall of the price of silver, but of the rise of the real price of these produce themselves.These produce are worth not only greater quantities of silver, but also greater quantities of labor and food than before.It takes more labor and food to go on the market, so after they go on the market, they represent more labor and food, or in other words, equal to more labor and food in value. third category The price of the native produce of the third and last class, naturally rises as the degree of improvement increases.The effectiveness of human industry in increasing these products is either limited or uncertain.The real price of such native produce, therefore, has a natural tendency to rise with the progress of improvement, but sometimes it may even fall, sometimes to continue in the same state in different ages, sometimes in the same period or Rising more or less, according to the degree to which the industrious human efforts of man have succeeded in increasing the yield of this product by various accidents which have occurred. The production of some primary products depends on the production of other products.The quantity of the former kind of produce which a country can furnish, therefore, is necessarily governed by the quantity of the latter kind which it can furnish.The quantity of wool or hides, for instance, in a country will necessarily be governed by the number of herds and herds it maintains; It may be said that what gradually raises the price of beef and mutton, in the course of improvement, raises the price of wool and leather in almost the same proportion.This may perhaps be true if, in the early stages of the improvement, the market for hides and hides, as well as the domestic market for cattle, is likewise confined to a narrow range.However, the scope of the two markets is usually very different. The sale of butcher's meat is almost everywhere confined within the borders of the country.A certain place in British America and Ireland operated a large-scale salting industry, but as far as I know, in the commercial world today, there are only those who operate this industry, in other words, export most of their domestic livestock meat to other countries. two places. The market for furs, on the other hand, even when the improvements were first made, was seldom confined within the borders of the country.Wool with little conditioning, and hides with a little conditioning, can easily be sent to distant countries.As these produce are the raw material of many manufactures, they may be demanded by the industry of other countries, even if there is no demand for them in the country where they originate. In a country where cultivation is extensive, and therefore small in population, the price of furs and skins always forms a much greater part of the total price of an animal than in a country where better cultivation is more densely populated, and where there is a greater demand for livestock meat.According to Hume's observation, the price of wool in the Saxon era was about two-fifths of the price of a sheep.He does so only for a much greater proportion than the present price of wool to the price of whole sheep.According to the very definite reports I have received, in some parts of Spain, sheep are often killed simply for their suet and wool, and their carcasses are left to rot on the ground, or eaten by carnivorous birds and beasts.If this fact sometimes occurs even in Spain, it is almost a regular phenomenon in Chile, in the Argentine capital, and in many other parts of Spanish America.In these places, horned animals are often culled for the sole purpose of utilizing animal hides and tallow.While the island of Haiti was frequently infested by pirates, the stability, improvement, and population of the French plantations, which now extended nearly to the whole of the western coast of the island, had not improved sufficiently to render the domestic cattle of the Spanish of the island of some value. At that time, livestock were often culled for hides and tallow.Spain now continues to occupy not only the eastern coast of the island, but all the interior and mountain regions of the island. As improvement and population increase, the price of the whole carcass of an animal must necessarily rise.This rise, however, has a much greater effect on the price of meat than on the price of hair and hides.Under the primitive state of society, the animal domestic market is always limited to the country where it was produced, so it must expand proportionally with social progress and population proliferation.But both animal hairs and skins, even though they are products of barbaric countries, are often marketed in the whole commercial world, and their markets are seldom enlarged in proportion to the increase of a country's social progress and population.As the state of world commerce is not appreciably affected by any improvement in one country, the market for such commodities, after an improvement in society and an increase in population, may remain exactly the same, or nearly the same, as before.However, according to the natural tendency of things, if society improves, its market must expand to some extent.As the manufactures of any country, having these commodities as raw materials, grow more and more prosperous, the market for them, if not greatly enlarged, must be moved nearer to the place of origin than before, and consequently the raw materials The price will increase at least to the extent of the freight savings.In this case, even if the price of animal hair and hide cannot be increased in the same proportion as the price of animal meat, it will naturally rise to a certain extent and will never fall. However, although the woolen manufactures in England are very prosperous, the price of wool has fallen greatly since Edward III.According to many reliable records, in the reign of Edward III (the middle of the fourteenth century or about 1339), the ordinary reasonable price of English wool︱tod (that is, twenty-eight pounds) was not less than ten shillings in the currency of the time.At that time, the currency was ten shillings, which contained six ounces of Taoheng silver. Calculated at twenty pence per ounce, it was about thirty shillings in today's currency.A good price at present for the best wool in England is but twenty-one shillings the tod.Thus the money-price of wool in Edward III's time was ten to seven in the present money-price of wool.As far as its real price is concerned, the former is especially superior.Based on the price of six shillings and eight pence per quarter, ten shillings could buy twelve bushels of wheat in those days.At twenty-eight shillings a quarter, twenty-one shillings can now buy only six bushels of wheat.The real price of wool then, therefore, should be in the same ratio as twelve to six, or two to one, to the real price of wool at present.That is to say, at that time Wool-Todd bought twice as much food as Wool-Todd can now buy.Had the real remuneration of labor been equal in the two ages, a tod of wool would have bought twice as much labor then as it does at present. The fall in the real and nominal price of wool is by no means the result of nature, but of violence and man-made.The first is the result of the absolute prohibition of the export of English wool; the second is the result of allowing Spanish wool to be imported duty-free; the third is the result of allowing only Irish wool to be exported to England and not to other countries.Because of these regulations, the wool market in England is confined to the home country, and cannot expand with the progress of society.The wool of several other countries had to compete with the wool of the interior of the country, and the wool of Ireland was forced to compete with the wool of England in the English market.Moreover, as the woolen manufactures in Ireland were unfairly and unjustly hindered, the Irish could use only a small part of their own wool within their own borders, and were obliged to export the greater part to England, the only place where they were permitted to sell their wool. market. I cannot find any reliable record of the price of raw hides in ancient times.Wool was generally regulated as an article of delivery to kings, and when delivered it must be valued at least at the prevailing price.This does not seem to be the case with raw hides.不過，弗裡伍德曾根據一四二五年牛津伯塞斯特修道院副院長與該院某牧師之間的帳單告訴我們，公牛皮五張，價十二先令；母牛皮五張，價七先令三便士；二齡羊皮三十六張，價九先令；小牛皮十六張，價二先令。在一四二五年時，十二先令所含的銀，約等於今日英幣二十四先令。這樣，按這帳單，公牛皮每張價格，折合銀量，就等於今幣四又五分之四先令。它的名義價格，遠較現今為低，但當時十二先令，按每夸特六先令八便士計算，可購小麥十八又五分之四蒲式耳。而同量小麥，在現今按每蒲式耳三先令六便士計算，卻要值三十一先令四便士。因此，當時公牛皮一張，所能購得的小麥量，現在需要十先令三便士才能購得。即其真實價值，等於今幣十先令三便上。當時家畜一入冬令，即不免陷於半飢餓狀態，我們不能設想其軀體是肥大的，重量四石即常衡十六磅一張的公牛皮，在今日視為中等牛皮，在往時恐要視為上等牛皮。據我所見，每石半克朗，實為今日（一七七三年二月）牛皮的普通價格，按這價格，這重四石的牛皮一張，不過值今幣十先令。因此，就公牛皮的名義價格而言，今日較當時為高，但就真實價格而言，即就所能購買或支配的食品真實量而言，今日實較古時為低。如上述帳單所示，母牛皮價格對公牛皮價格，大抵常保有普通比例。羊皮價格大大超過這普通比例。羊皮也許和羊毛一起賣掉。反之，小牛皮價格大大低於這比例。在家畜價格非常低廉的國家中，不是為著延續畜種而飼養的小牛，一般都在幼時撲殺。二三十年前的蘇格蘭，就是這樣。小牛價格通常不夠償還它所消費的牛乳價格。所以，撲殺小牛可節省牛乳。小牛的皮的價格因此很低。 生皮價格，現在比幾年前遠為低廉。此中原因大約不外海豹皮的關稅撤廢了，一七六九年又許愛爾蘭及其他殖民地的生皮得於一定年限內無稅輸入。不過，就現在全世紀平均來看，生皮的真實價格大概比古時略高。此種商品的性質，和羊毛比較，就更不宜於輸送遠方。共保存所易蒙受的損害，亦較羊毛為大。若以鹽醃漬，則以品質不如新鮮生皮，其售價將更低。這種情形，必定會使生皮的價格在自己國內精製的國家高，不在自己國內精製而向外國輸出的國家低。在野蠻國家低，在進步的工業國高。在現代高，在古代低。加之，英國製革業，並不能像毛織業那樣，使人相信這種製造業的繁榮，為國家安全所繫，因而像後者那樣受到國人的愛護。固然，生皮的輸出被禁止了，且被宣告是一種有害行為，但由海外輸入的生皮，卻已課稅。由愛爾蘭及各殖民地輸入的生皮關稅，雖經一度廢除（僅五年），可是，愛爾蘭剩餘的生皮，即不在愛爾蘭自己境內精製的生皮，也不一定要在不列顛境內銷售。至於各殖民地普通家畜生皮，不過數年以前，才列入只許在母國販賣、不得向他處販賣的商品項目中。愛爾蘭在這一方面，也不曾象羊毛那樣，為了要維持不列顛製造業而受到壓迫。 在進步和有文化的國家裡，不論何種規定，如果立意在於減低獸毛價格或獸皮價格，就必有提高獸肉價格的傾向。農民在良好土地上飼養的牲畜，其價格必須足夠付給地主以他有理由希望能得自良好土地的地租以及付給農民以他有理由希望能得自此種土地的普通利潤，否則他們就將不再飼養。因此兩者不取償干牲畜的皮毛，即取償於牲畜的肉。所取於皮毛的愈少，則所取於肉的必愈多，所取於肉的愈少，則所取於皮毛的必愈多。地主只要獲取地租，農業家只要獲取利潤，至於毛、皮、肉的價格，各在一頭牲畜的全部價格中所佔比例如何，那是他們不暇計及的。由此看來，在改良及耕作發達國家，地主和農業家決不會因此等規定而受到大的影響，不過由於肉價的上漲，他們在消費者立場上受些不利罷了。但是，在社會不改進、田野未開闢的國家，情形則完全兩樣。此等國家，大部分土地都用來畜牧，畜牧而外，無其他用途。而牲畜價格的主要部分，又全由毛、皮構成，肉不過占極少的部分。在此種場合，他們以地主和農業家的資格說，就將大受上述規定的影響。但他們以消費者資格說，則所受影響極為有限。因為在此種場合，毛、皮價格的跌落，並不會招致肉價的提高。因為，該國大部分土地，除飼養牲畜外，即無其他用途，所以，即使毛、皮跌落，也只好繼續飼養同數牲畜。家畜肉將仍以同一數量提供市場，家畜肉的需求不會較前加大，因此，家畜肉的價格也不會較前加大。肉價保持原狀，毛價比較跌落，於是，牲畜的全部價格就下落，接著，以牲畜為主要產物的一切土地（即該國大部分土地）的地租和利潤亦因而下落。因此，永久禁止羊毛輸出的規定（這種規定，通常說是愛德華三世制定的，實則不然），在當時的情形下，實為最有害的規定。其實行不但使國家大部分土地的真實價值降低，且使最重要的小牲畜的價格跌落，因而在很大程度上推遲土地的此後的改進。 蘇格蘭自與英格蘭合併後，其羊毛價格顯著下落。因為蘇格蘭羊毛自合併時起即與歐洲大市場絕緣，而局限於不列顛小市場中。如果不是家畜肉價格的上升充分補償了羊毛價格的下落，那末，蘇格蘭南部各郡主要用於養羊業的大部分土地的價格。必深受這次合併的影響。 人類對於增加羊毛產量生皮產量的努力的功效，就其要依靠本國牲畜的產量說，必定是有一定限制的，就其要依靠外國牲畜的產量說，又必定是無把握的。就後一層說，與其說要依靠外國出產的羊毛和生皮的數量，倒不如說要依靠外國不自行加工的羊毛和生皮的數量。同時，外國對於此等原生產物的輸出，是否認為應加以限制，亦對上述努力的實效有影響。凡此均非本國操業者所得自主，所以，人類勤勞在這方面所得的實效，不但受有限制，並且是不確定的。 人類勤勞增加羊毛、生皮所收的效果如此，人類勤勞增加另一種極重要原生產物即魚的上市量所收的效果也如此。這方面的努力，勢必受當地地理位置的限制。距離海洋遠嗎，內地江河湖沼多嗎，此等海洋江河湖沼產出量豐富嗎，這些都很有關係。當人口增多，該國土地和勞動年產物增多的時候，魚的購買者必增多。而且，這些購買者，擁有更大量各種其他貨物，或換句話說，擁有更大量各種其他貨物的代價來作購買。但是，為供應此擴大了的市場，所投下的勞動量，如不增多到超過市場擴大的比例，那就不能滿足這擴大了的需要。例如，每年原來只需要一千噸魚的市場，如擴大到需要一萬噸魚，那末，為供給此市場而增加的勞動量，非超過十倍，就不能滿足這需要。因為在此場合，魚類大都要取自較遠地方，使用的漁船，一定要較大，用以捕魚的工具，一定價格較高。因此，這種商品的真實價洛，自然會隨改良增進而上升，我相信，各國的魚價，都或多或少地上升了。 捕魚一日能得多少，雖難於確定，然若就一年或數年說，則在一定地方情況下，我們認為，人類捕魚努力的一般功效，是相當確定的，而實際情況，也是如此。可是，由於這功效取決於一國財富及勤勞狀態的少，取決於地理位置的多，所以，兩個國家縱使改良進步的程度非常不同，在漁業上人類勤勞的功效，卻可能相同；縱使改良進步的程度相同，這功效卻可能大不相同。捕魚的功效與改良狀態的關係，很不確定。這種不確定，也是我在這裡所要討論的。 人類要增加由地中採出的各種礦物金屬量，特別是比較昂貴的金石量，其勤勞功效，雖似乎沒有限制，但完全不確定。 一國所有貴金屬量的多寡，並不受該國地理情況如礦山肥瘠的限制。沒有礦山的國家，往往擁有大量貴金屬。無論什麼國家，其所擁有的貴金屬的多寡，取決於以下兩種情況。第一，取決於該國的購買力，取決於其產業狀態，取決於其土地和勞動的年產物。因為這些因素決定它所能用以開採本國礦山的金銀或購買他國礦山的金銀這一類非必要品的勞動與食品的量是多還是少。第二，取決於在一定期間內以金銀供給世界商場的礦山的肥瘠程度。因為金銀輸途容易，運費低廉，而且體積小價值大，所只，即離礦山很遠的國家，其金銀量，也要多少受這種礦山肥瘠的影響。中國、印度的金銀量，曾多少受美洲各礦山豐饒的影響。 就一國金銀量須取決於上述兩情況的前一情況（購買力）來說，金銀的真實價格，與其他一切奢侈品、非必要品的真實價格一樣，多半隨該國財富及改良的增進而上升，隨該國的貧困與不振而下降。因為，持有多量剩餘勞動與食品的國家，和只持有少量剩餘勞動與食品的國家比較，在購買一定數量金銀時，一定能支付較大數量的勞動與食品。 就一國金銀量取決於上述兩情況的後一情況（以金銀供給世界商場的各礦山的肥瘠情況）來說，金銀的真實價格，換言之，它們所能購買所能交換的勞動量和食品量，必按照那礦山豐饒貧瘠情況的比例而或多或少地升降。 但很明顯，在一定時期內以金銀供給世界的礦山，究竟是豐饒，或是貧瘠，與一特定國家的產業狀態大抵沒有何等關係，而且與一般世界的產業狀態，似乎也沒有何等必然的關係。固然，在技藝與貿易逐漸向世界更廣的地面擴展，而礦山的探索也隨著向更廣的地面擴大的場合，新礦山發現的機會，必比其探索只限於比較狹窄地區的時候來得大。但在舊礦山漸次掘盡的時候，能否發現新礦山是極無把握的事，絕非人類技巧和勤勞所能保證。不是實際發現，不是採掘成功，不能確定新礦山的價值，甚至不能確定新礦山的存在。一切跡象都不可靠，這是世所公認的。在進行探索新曠山的時候，人類勤勞成功或不成功的可能性，似乎同是無限大的。今後一二世紀中，也許能發現較以前更為豐饒的新礦山，而那時候現在最多產的礦山，將比美洲各礦山發現以前的任何礦山還要顯得貧瘠，這也是可能有的事。無論這兩者中那一個實現，對於世界的真實財富和繁榮，換言之，對於土地和勞動的年產物的真實價值，是無關重要的。這年產物的名義價值，換言之，表明或代表這年產物的金銀量，無疑會有極大的差異，可是，其真實價值，換言之，其所能購買所能支配的真實勞動量，卻完全一樣。在前一場合，一先令可能只代表今日一便士所能代表的同量勞動。在後一場合，一便士可能代表今日一先令所代表的同量勞動。但在前一場合，持有一先令的人，並不見得比今日持有一便士的人富，在後一場合，持有一便士的人，也並不比今日持有一先令的人窮。人類從前一場合所享得的唯一利益，是金銀器皿的低廉與繁多，人類從後一場合蒙受的唯一不利，只是這類不關重要的非必需品的昂貴與稀少。 關於銀價變動的結論 搜集古代商品貨幣價格的作家，大都以穀物及一般物品貨幣價格的低廉，換言之，大都以金銀價值的昂貴，不僅作為此等金屬不足的證據，而且作為當時一般國家貧乏野蠻的證據。這種概念，是和那以一國富裕由於金銀豐饒、一國貧乏由於金銀不足的經濟學體系分不開的。關於此種經濟學體系，我將於第四篇加以充分的說明，在此僅論以下事實，即金銀價值的昂貴，僅可證明以此類金屬供給世界商場的各礦山的貧瘠，決不能證明金銀昂貴國家的貧窮與野蠻。貧國不能像富國購買那麼多的金銀，也不能對於金銀支付那麼高的價格。所以，此等金屬的價值，在貧國決不會比富國更高。中國比歐洲任何國家都富得多，但貴金屬價值在中國，卻比歐洲各國高得多。固然，歐洲的財富，自美洲礦山發現以來，已大有增加，同時金銀價值亦逐漸低落。但這種價值的下落，並非起因於歐洲真實財富的增加，或其土地和勞動的年產物的增加，而是起因於曠古未有的豐饒礦山的偶然發現。歐洲金銀量的增加與製造業及農業的發達，雖然是發生在幾乎同一個時期，但其原因卻非常不相同，兩者相互間簡直沒有何等自然關係。金銀量的增加，事出偶然，與任何深慮、任何政策無關，而且深慮與政策，亦無能為力。製造業及農業的發達，則是起因於封建制度的崩潰與新政府的成立。後者對於產業，給予了它所需求的唯一獎勵，即相當保證了各人得享受各人勞動的果實。封建制度至今依舊殘存的波蘭，其貧乏狀況差不多和美洲發現以前無異。然而在波蘭，也像在歐洲其他各地一樣，穀物的貨幣價格騰貴了，金銀的真實價值下落了。可知在波蘭，貴金屬也像在他國一樣，數量增加了，其增加的數量，就其對該國土地和勞動的年產物的比例來說，也和他國相似。可是，這種貴金屬的增加，似乎並不曾增加該國的年產物，不曾增進其製造業及農業，也不曾改善其居民的境遇。西班牙和葡萄牙二國，在美洲擁有許多礦山，但在歐洲各國中，恐怕它們是僅次於波蘭的兩個最貧國家了。可是，貴金屬的價值，在西班牙和葡萄牙，卻一定比歐洲其他地方低，因為，貴金屬是這兩國運往歐洲各地的，不但要附加運費和保險費，而已由於這兩國金銀的輸出，或被禁止或需繳納重稅，還要付走私費用。所以，就其對土地和勞動的年產物的比例說，貴金屬量在這兩國一定比歐洲其他各國多。然而，它們卻比歐洲其他各國貧。它們雖已廢除了封建制度，但代興的並不是更好的制度。 正如金銀價值的低落，並不能證明一國的富裕繁榮，金銀價值的騰貴，換言之，穀物及一般物品貨幣價格的低落，也不能證明一國的貧困、野蠻。 不過，一國的貧困、野蠻，雖不能取證於穀物的低賤，卻可十之八九取證於家畜、家禽、一切野生鳥獸這類東西的貨幣價格比穀物的貨幣價格來得低這個事實。這類東西貨幣價格的低賤，明顯地證明了以下兩個事實：第一，此等產物的繁多程度，大於穀物，可知畜牧荒地所佔的面積，較穀物耕地大得多；第二，畜牧荒地的地價，較穀物耕地的地價低廉，可知該國大部分土地還未加以耕作和改良。此二者證明，這種國家的資財和人口，對其土地面積所持的比例，與普通文明國不同，從而證明其社會狀態向在幼稚階段。總之，我們由一艘貨物尤其是穀物的貨幣價格的高低所能推斷的，只是那時候以金銀供給世界商場的各礦山的肥瘠，決不能據以推斷該國的貧富。但是，我們從某些種類貨物的貨幣價格與其他貨物的貨幣價格對比的高低，卻可幾乎完全準確地推斷，該國是富裕，或是貧困；其大部分土地，是否改良；其社會狀態，是接近野蠻，還是接近文明。 物品貨幣價格騰貴的原因，如全是由於銀價跌落，則一切貨物所受影響，一定相同。即銀價若較前減少三分之一、四分之一或五分之一，所有一切貨物價格，亦必相應地普遍抬高三分之一、四分之一或五分之一。但是，人們當作問題議論紛壇的各種食品價格的騰貴，其程度卻參差不一。就現世紀平均來看，人們公認，即使那些以銀價騰貴來說明穀價騰貴的人也承認，穀價上升率比其他食品價格上升率小得多。由此可知，後者價格的騰貴，決不能完全歸因於銀價跌落，我們必須考慮其他原因。以上所提出的原因，也許已可充分說明，為什麼這些食品價格漲得比穀物大，而無需求助於銀價跌落的假設。 單就穀物說，在現世紀最初六十四年間，及最近異常不良季節以前，其價格較前世紀最後六十四年間略低。此種事實，不但英國溫莎市場價格表證明其屬實，即蘇格蘭各郡公定穀價調查表，以及法國麥桑斯和杜普雷．have to.聖莫爾二氏所精勤搜集的許多市場賬薄，亦證明其屬實。此種實證，原極繁瑣難稽，現在所得，可算是超出人們所期望的那麼完備了。 至於最近十年或十二年的穀物高價，可由季節不良充分說明，不必想到銀價跌落這個事實。 因此，銀價在不斷跌落的見解，實無何等確鑿的根據。既不根據對穀價的觀察，也不根據對其他食品價格的觀察。 或許有人說：同量銀在今日所能購得的某種食品量，即使照上面的敘述，亦遠較前世紀所能購得的該種食品量為少。他們還說，確定這個變化究竟是由於該貨物價值的上漲，還是由於銀價的下落，即使確定了，也不過是確定一種徒然的、無益的區別，對一個只攜帶一定量白銀去做買賣或只有一定量貨幣收入的人，並無幫助。我當然不敢說，知道這個區別就能以較廉的價格購到貨物。但這種區別決不能因此便說是全無所用。 一國的繁榮狀態，可由此區別，得到一平易的左證。所以這區別的確定，對於大眾當不無助益。某種食品價格的騰貴，若是由於銀價的下落，那是由於這樣一種情況，從它所能推得的，只是美洲礦山的豐饒。儘管有了這種情況，真實財富即土地和勞動的年產物就會日漸衰微，像葡萄牙、波蘭那樣，或者日漸增加，像歐洲其他大部分地方那樣。但這些食品價格的騰貴，若是由於生產該食品的土地的真實價值的增大，即該土地產出力的增長，或由於土地耕作的改善和改臾的擴展，由於土地更適於穀物生產，那我們就可以堅決地斷定，該國是在繁榮進步。土地乃是一切大國的國家財富中最大的、最重要的、最持久的部分。此種區別，對於此最大、最重要、最持久部分的價值有否增加，既能提供決定性的證據，那無疑不能說對公眾毫無助益，至少能給予公眾以若干滿足。 不但如此，在規定某些下級僱員的報酬時，此區別對公眾也有若干助益。若某種食品價格的騰貴，是由於銀價的下落，則此等僱員的金銀報酬（假定以前並未失之過高），便應按此下落的比例予以增加。否則其真實報酬，將依這同一比例減少。但食物價格的騰貴，如果是由於該食物價值隨著生產它們的土地的產出力的改善而增加，那末，要按什麼比例來抬高他們的金錢報酬，或者要否抬高，其判定就成為一個極微妙的問題。我相信，改良及耕作的擴張，既一定會使一切動物性食物與穀物對比的價格或多或少地提高，它也一定會使一切植物性食物和穀物對比的價格式多或少地下落。它必能使動物性食物價格上漲，國為生產此食物的大部分土地，既已改良而適於穀物的生產，就得對地主和農業家提供穀田的地租和利潤。它必能使植物性食物的價格下跌，因為由於增加了土地的產出力，這種食物的產量必更為豐足。而且，農業的改良使許多植物性食物能以更廉的（因為所需土地與勞動化穀物少）價格上市。如馬鈴薯，如玉米即所謂印度玉蜀黍，都屬於此類。此兩者為歐洲農業，或者說歐洲本身，由於通商及航海大發展而得到的二大改良。此外，在農業幼稚狀態下，許多植物性食物，其栽種僅局限於菜園中，所用器具僅為鋤。到了農業改進，這些植物就開始在一般農場栽植，並以耕犁從事栽植。如蕪青、胡蘿蔔、捲心菜等，都屬於此類。因此，在社會改良的進程中，如果某一種食品的真實價格必因而騰貴，那末，另一種食品的真實價格，就必因而跌落。在此場合，要判定前者的漲價，在什麼程度上能由後者的跌價來抵償，那是更微妙的問題。家畜肉價格一旦漲到極點（除豬肉外，一切家畜內在英格蘭大部分地方，似乎已於一世紀前，達到了極點），此後其他各種動物性食物價格，無論如何騰貴，對一般下層階級人民的境遇，是不會有大影響的。英格蘭大部分貧民境遇必不至因家禽、魚類、野禽或鹿肉價格的騰貴而陷於大困苦，團為馬鈴薯的跌價定可給予一定的補救。 當現今食物缺乏時，穀價昂貴，無疑會使一般貧民受苦。但在普通豐年，穀物以普通價格或平均價格出售時，他種原生產物價格的自然上升，不會使貧民感到大痛苦。食鹽、肥皂、皮革、麥芽、麥酒等製造品價格因課稅而發生的人為的上漲，也許會引起他們更大的痛苦。 改良的進展對於製造品真實價格的影響 但是，改良會自然而然地產生逐漸降低一切製造品真實價格的結果。隨著改良，一切製造業的費用，大概都會逐漸減低，沒有例外。機械的改善，技巧的進步，作業上更妥當的分工，無一非改良所致，亦無一不使任何作業所需的勞動量大減。誠然，社會狀態，日益繁榮，勞動的真實價格，必大大增高，但必要勞動量的大減少，一般足以補償勞動價格的增高而有餘。 固然，有些製造品，從改良上所得的一切利益，還不足以抵償其原料真實價格的增高。在許多木器的製作，能以最好機器、最大技巧及最完善分工得到的一切利益，恐怕還抵不過木材真實價格由於土地改良而發生的上漲。 但是，在原料的真實價格沒有增高或增高有限的場合，製造品的真實價格，一定會大大低落。 近兩世紀，物價跌落最顯著的要算那些以賤金屬為原料的製造品了。前世紀中葉需二十餘鎊才能購得的手錶，現在恐怕有二十先令就可購得。刀匠鐵匠所製成的物品，各種鋼鐵玩具，以及以伯明翰出品設菲爾德出品著稱的一切貨物，其價格跌落的程度，雖然沒有象表價那麼大，但也足使歐洲其他各地工人驚倒。他們在許多場合承認，即使以兩倍甚至三倍的價格，還不能製出同樣優良的產品。也許以賤金屬為材料的這種種製造業，比一切其他製造業都更適宜於進行分工，更可進行機械改良。其製造品價格的特別低廉，當無足怪。 在近兩世紀中，毛織業製造品，沒有何等顯著的跌價。反之，最上等毛織物價格，在這二十五年乃至三十年間，和其品質比較，卻上漲了一些。據說，這是因為西班牙羊毛貴了好多。又有人說，完全由英格蘭羊毛製成的約克州毛織物的價格，就其品質說，在現世紀中，已跌落了好些。但是品質的好壞，大有爭辯的餘地。所以這種說法，我都認為未必確實。毛織業上的分工狀況，今日和百年前大致相同。其使用的機械，亦無大變動。但這兩方面可能都有小小改良，使毛織物價格跌落若干。 但是，我們如把此種製造品的現在價格和更遠的十五世紀末葉價格比較。則其跌價就顯得明確得多。那時分工程度，遠不及今日精細，使用的機器，亦遠較今日不完備。 一四八七年即亨利七世第四年曾頒布以下法令：最上等赤呢或最上等花呢一碼，零售不得超過十六先令，違者每碼課罰金四十先令。依此推斷，含銀量約與今幣二十四先令相等的十六先令，當時看做是上等呢一碼的合理價格。當時頒布此法令，意在取締奢侈，可知普通售價必在十六先令以上。每碼一幾尼在今日可看做此等織物的最高價格。這樣說來，即使假定品質相等，最上等呢的貨幣價格，自十五世紀末葉以來，亦顯有跌落，何況今日最上等呢的質量，可能比當時好得多。至於它的真實價格，則跌落更大。六先令八便士，為當時及此後許久小麥每夸特的平均價格，所以十六先令就是小麥二夸特三蒲式耳多的價格。現在小麥一夸特如評價為二十八先令，則當時最上等呢一碼的真實價格，至少必等於現在英幣三鎊六先令六便士。當時購買這種呢一碼的人，必須支付今日三磅六先令六便士所能支配的勞動量與食品量。粗呢的真實價格，雖亦顯有跌落，但其跌落程度