These economic rules, indeed, are applicable only to the extent that higher and national considerations do not in the interest of all, create exceptions to them. "Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" No rational people will allow certain services to be performed for them preponderantly by foreigners, even when they can be performed cheaper by the latter--the services of religion, of the army, of the state, etc. The same is true of landownership; and all the truer in proportion as political and legal rights of presentation and other forms of patronage are attached to it. Lastly, hypothecation-debts which go beyond certain limits, may entail the same consequences as the complete alienation of the land;[199-5] and Raynal may have been, under certain circumstances, right when he said, that to admit foreigners to subscribe to the national debt was equivalent to ceding a province to them.[199-6] It is obvious that a great power may do much in this relation that would be a risk to a small state.[199-7] [199-8] [Footnote 199-1: "The transportation of productive capital and industrial forces from one point where their services are worse paid for, to another where they find a rich reward, will not be apt to be made so long as the equilibrium may be obtained [most frequently much more easily] by the interchange of the products." (_Nebenius_, Œff. Credit, I, 48.) The repeal of the corn laws in England certainly diminished the emigration of English capital.] [Footnote 199-2: For an official declaration of the Brazilian state in this direction, see Novara Reise.] [Footnote 199-3: Basing himself hereon, _Petty_, Political Anatomy of Ireland, 82 ff., questions the usual opinion, that Ireland suffered so much from absenteeism. He says that a prohibition of absenteeism carried out to its logical conclusion would require every man to sit on the sod he had tilled himself. _Carey_, On the Rate of Wages, 1835, 477, calls English capitalists who draw interest from America, absentees.]