Now suppose a society to consist of landlords, manufacturers, farmers, and labourers. The labourers, it is agreed, would be recompensed for the tax;--but by whom?--who would pay that portion which did not fall on the landlords?--the manufacturers could pay no part of it; for if the price of their commodities should rise in proportion to the additional wages they paid, they would be in a better situation after than before the tax. If the clothier, the hatter, the shoemaker, &c., should be each able to raise the price of their goods 10 per cent.,--supposing 10 per cent. to recompense them completely for the additional wages they paid,--if, as Adam Smith says, "they would be entitled and obliged to charge the additional wages _with a profit_ upon the price of their goods," they could each consume as much as before of each other's goods, and therefore they would pay nothing towards the tax. If the clothier paid more for his hats and shoes, he would receive more for his cloth, and if the hatter paid more for his cloth and shoes, he would receive more for his hats. All manufactured commodities then would be bought by them with as much advantage as before, and inasmuch as corn would not be raised in price whilst they had an additional sum to lay out upon its purchase, they would be benefited, and not injured by such a tax. If then neither the labourers nor the manufacturers would contribute towards such a tax; if the farmers would be also recompensed by a fall of rent, landlords alone must not only bear its whole weight, but they must also contribute to the increased gains of the manufacturers. To do this, however, they should consume all the manufactured commodities in the country, for the additional price charged on the whole mass is little more than the tax originally imposed on the labourers in manufactures. Now it will not be disputed that the clothier, the hatter, and all other manufacturers, are consumers of each other's goods; it will not be disputed that labourers of all descriptions consume soap, cloth, shoes, candles, and various other commodities: it is therefore impossible that the whole weight of these taxes should fall on landlords only. But if the labourers pay no part of the tax, and yet manufactured commodities rise in price, wages must rise, not only to compensate them for the tax, but for the increased price of manufactured necessaries, which, as far as it affects agricultural labour, will be a new cause for the fall of rent; and, as far as it affects manufacturing labour, for a further rise in the price of goods. This rise in the price of goods will again operate on wages, and the action and re-action, first of wages on goods, and then of goods on wages, will be extended without any assignable limits. The arguments by which this theory is supported, lead to such absurd conclusions that it may at once be seen that the principle is wholly indefensible.