used to be a notion, which for many years affected our legislation, that unless we sent away to foreigners a great many more goods than we received from them, or, in other words, unless our exports were much greater in value than our imports, the balance of trade was against us. [BALANCE OF TRADE.] This notion was founded upon the belief that if we sent away a greater amount of goods than those we received in exchange, we should be paid the difference in bullion; and that the nation would be rich, not in the proportion in which it was industrious at home, and in which its industry obtained foreign products in exchange for native products, but as it got a surplus of gold, year by year, through its foreign trade. Now, in point of fact, no such surplus ever did accrue, or ever could have accrued; for the commercial transactions between one country and another are in fact a series of exchanges or barter, and gold is only the standard by which those exchanges are regulated. We shall see how these considerations bear upon the relations of the English landlord to his native country when he becomes an absentee. When the landlord, whose case we have supposed, resided upon his estate, he probably received his rental direct | from his tenants. That rental was the landlord's share of as many quarters of corn, as many head of oxen and sheep, as many fleeces of wool, as many fowls, as many pounds of butter, and so forth, as the estate produced. Three or four centuries ago the landlord's share was paid in kind: for the convenience of all parties it is now paid in money, or, in other words, the tenant sells the landlord's share, as well as his own share, and pays over the amount of his share to the landlord, in a money-rent, instead of in produce. When the landlord removes to a distant part of the country, this arrangement of modern times becomes doubly convenient. The rental is collected by a steward, and is remitted, usually through a banker, to the landlord. By this process, the produce of the land may be most advantageously sold; and the landlord receives the amount of his share at his own door, without even the risk of sending money from one part of the kingdom to another. If the landlord becomes an absentee, the process of remitting his rental assumes a more complicated shape. We will suppose that he settles in the Netherlands. His means of living there depend upon the punctual transmission of the value of his share of the corn, cattle, and other produce which grow upon his estate in England. To make the remittance in bullion would not only be expensive, but unsafe; and, indeed, remittances in bullion can never be made to any considerable extent (such as the demands of absentees would require) from one country to another; for these large remittances would produce a scarcity of money at home, and then the bullion being raised in value, its remittance would consequently cease. Although the expenses of our armies in the Peninsula, in 1812-13, amounted to nearly 32,000,000l., the remittances in coin were little more than 3,000,000l. Nearly all foreign remittances are carried on by bills of exchange. The operation of a bill of exchange, in connection with the absentee landlord, would be this:-He is a consumer now, in great part, of foreign produce; he may require many articles of English produce, through the effect of habit; but whether or no, there must be an export of English goods to some country, to the amount of the foreign goods which he consumes, otherwise his remittances could not be made to him. He draws a bill upon England, which he pays, through a banker, to a merchant at Antwerp. This bill represents his share of the corn and cattle upon his farm; but the merchant at Antwerp, who does not want corn and cattle, transmits it to a merchant at London, in payment for cotton goods and hardware, which he does want. Or there may be another process. The agent, in England, of the absentee landlord, may procure a bill upon the merchant at Antwerp, which he transmits to the English landlord; and the merchant at Antwerp, recognising in that bill the representation of a debt which he has incurred to England, hands over the proceeds to the bearer of the bill. In either case the bill represents the value of English commodities exported to fo- | is, in nearly every case, invested at reigners. It is alleged that the consump- home. It is the same thing whether tion of an English resident in a foreign the absentee improves his own estate by state, out of a capital derived from Eng- the accumulation, or lends the amount laud, produces, in principle, the same of the capital so saved to other encouindirect effects upon English industry, ragers of industry at home. Nor could as his partial or entire consumption of the political economists ever have inforeign goods in England. His con- tended, in maintaining, as a mere quessumption of foreign goods abroad is equi- tion of wealth, that it was a matter of valent to an importation of foreign goods indifference where an income was spent, into England; and that consumption, it to put out of view the moral advantages is said, produces a correspondent expor- which arise out of a rational course of tation of English goods to the foreigner. individual expenditure. If England sends out a thousand pounds' worth of her exports in consequence of the absentee's residence abroad, it is maintained that it cannot be said that she gets nothing in return. She would have had to pay a thousand pounds to the landlord wherever he resided; and the only question is, whether she pays the amount less advantageously for the national welfare to the absentee, than to the resident at home. The political economists, whose opinions we have endeavoured to exhibit, maintain that she does not. It is probable that a good deal of the difficulty which this question presents has arisen from the circumstance that the subtraction of a particular amount of expenditure from a particular district is felt in the immediate locality as an evil, while the benefit which still remains to the whole country is not perceived, because it is universally diffused. But it would be a widely different question if the absentee landlord, who had been accustomed to expend a certain portion of his income in the improvement of his estate in England, were to suspend those improvements, and invest his surplus capital in undertakings in a foreign country. This the political economists, who have been most consistent in their opinions as to the effects of absentee consumption, never maintained: if they had, they would have confounded the great distinction between accumulation and consumption, upon which the very foundations of their science rest. In many cases the smaller consumption of an absentee, in a country where the necessaries of life are cheap, enables him to accumulate with greater ease than he could at home; and this accumulation (M'Culloch's Evidence before the Select Committee on the State of Ireland, 1825, Fourth Report, pp. 813-815; also his Evidence before the Select Committee on the State of the Poor in Ireland, 1830, p. 592, &c.-Leslie Foster's Essay upon Commercial Exchange, 1804, quoted in the last-mentioned Report, p. 597; Say, Cours Complet d'Economie Politique, tom. v. chap. 6; Chalmers on Political Economy, p. 200, 1832; Quarterly Review, vol. xxxiii. p. 459, for a hostile examination of Mr. M'Culloch's opinions.) So far we have given the arguments of those economists who have contended that absenteeism is no injury to the country from which the rent of the absentee is derived. It must be admitted that the evil is not so serious as many people suppose, and if we take everything into the account, it may be that the evil is inconsiderable. So complicated are the relations of modern society, that any restraint upon the mode in which a man spends his income would probably do much more mischief, even to the country from which an absentee derives his income, than the absenteeism itself does, whatever that amount of mischief may be. Still, as a mere scientific question, the opinion of those who maintain that absenteeism is no loss to the country of the absentee, requires some limitation. It is easy to show that its direct effect is to diminish accumulation in the country of the absentee, and it is not easy to show that this direct effect is counteracted to its full amount in any indirect way. It cannot be proved, as it has been stated above, that the absentee's consump tion of foreign goods abroad is equivalent to an importation of foreign goods into England, and that such consumption produces a correspondent exportation of English goods to the foreigner. The absentee is enabled to receive his rent abroad because a foreign trade already exists; and it is not necessary, in order that he shall be able to receive his rent in money abroad, that a trade should exist between his native country and the country of his residence. There must be a foreign trade somewhere, in order that he may receive his rent abroad in money, but a man may live in a part of Europe which has no trade with Great Britain, and he will receive his money by an indirect route, and by means of the trade of England with some other foreign country. But it does not follow that the foreign trade of Great Britain is increased by the consumption of an absentee abroad so as to produce an exportation of English goods to the amount of his foreign consumption. And if we admit that the absentee's consumption of foreign goods abroad produces all the effect that has been attributed to it, this will not remove the whole difficulty. Many of the things which he consumes abroad are not the peculiar products of the foreign country which he would or might consume, whether he was in England or a foreign country. He consumes and uses many things abroad which he would consume or use in England, and which must be furnished by the country in which he is residing. Accumulation, or the increase of wealth in a country, can only arise from savings or from profits. All persons who supply the demands of others obtain a profit by the transaction; at least the obtaining of a profit is the object with which a demand is supplied, and the actual obtaining of a profit is the condition without which a demand cannot be permanently supplied. All persons who have an income to spend may in one sense consume it unproductively, as it is termed, that is, the income may be spent merely for the purpose of enjoyment, and not for the purpose of profitable production. But no income which is received in money can be spent without indirectly causing profitable production, for every person who supplies the wants of the spender of the income receives a portion of the spender's money, part of which portion is the profit of the supplier. If this income is spent in France or in Belgium, persons in France or in Belgium derive a profit from supplying the absentee, and this profit enables them to accumulate. What is thus spent in France or in Belgium produces a profit to a Frenchman or a Belgian, and enables him to accumulate, and this profit is something taken from the profits of those who would supply the demands of the consumer in England. If all the persons who come to settle in London, and require commodious houses, servants, fruits, vegetables, and so forth, were to settle at Brussels, the houses which are now built in London, and the grounds which are employed as kitchen-gardens round the metropolis, would not exist, and the profit derived from this employment of capital would not exist. It would be transferred to Brussels and to Belgian capitalists. This would be the immediate effect of the wealthy residents in London removing to Brussels. The removal of these residents to Brussels would be the withdrawal of one of the means of profitably employing capital, and would so far be a loss to the national wealth. Nor can it be shown that the capital which is now employed in and about London in building houses and cultivating gardenground could be employed with equal profit in some other way; for to assert this would be equivalent to asserting that it is always possible to employ capital under all circumstances in a manner equally profitable. It may be rejoined, that if the wealthy residents of London removed to Brussels, English capital would be required in order to accommodate them with houses, and to provide other ordinary necessaries. This may be admitted, and yet it does not remove all the difficulty, for if the resi dents were to remove to various towns of Italy, the employment of English capital would not be required to the same degree as if they were all to remove to Brussels. There are also numerous small sources of profit arising from the supply of the ordinary wants of a man and his family, which accrue to the people of the place | LL.B., in which the subject of absen- ACADEMY. [UNIVERSITY.] CHANGE.] in which a man fixes his residence: these are the ordinary retail profits of trade. This is obvious in the case of a number of families quitting a provincial town to reside in London: the provincial town decays, and that source of profit which is derived from supplying the wants of the families is transferred to the tradesmen of their new place of residence. This, which is true as to one place in England compared with another, is equally true as to England compared with Belgium or France. If we take into account merely the amount of wages which a large body of absentees must pay to their domestic servants, this will form a very considerable sum. The savings of domestic servants in England from their wages are invested in various ways; and such savings are no small part of the whole amount of the deposits in Savings' Banks. It will hardly be maintained that all those who would be employed as domestic servants in London, if the absentees in France were to come to live in London, are employed with equal profit to them-power of the Masters of the Court. The selves while the absentees are abroad. London is supplied with domestic servants from the country, many of whom would be living at home and doing nothing, if there were no demand for their services in London; and everything that diminishes such demand, diminishes the savings of a class whose accumulated earnings form a part of the productive capital of Great Britain. Those, then, who maintain that abgenteeism has no effect on the wealth of the country from which the absentee derives his income, maintain a proposition which is untrue. Those who maintain that the amount which a man spends in a foreign country is so much clear loss to the country of the absentee, are also mistaken. There are many ways in which the loss is indirectly made up; but whatever may be its amount, it would be unwise to check absenteeism by any direct means, and it is not easy to see how it can be checked indirectly in any way that will produce good. 6 Since writing this we have seen Five Lectures on Political Economy,' delivered before the University of Dublin, in Michaelmas Terim, 1843, by J. A. Lawson, 66 ACCEPTOR. [BILL OF EXCHANGE.] ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, an officer of the Court of Chancery, first appointed under an act (12 Geo. I. c. 32) for securing the moneys and effects of the suitors." The act recites that ill consequence and great prejudice already had and might again ensue to the suitors by having their moneys left in the sole bonds, tallies, orders and effects of suitors No the first appointment in 1726. The salary is 9001. a year, and 600l. a year as Master's salary, with some other emoluments. The total sum standing in the name of the Accountant-General on the 30th of April, 1841, was 40,957,8391., of which above 39,000,000l. was invested in stock, and 1,759,6291. was in cash. (App. to Report on Courts of Law and Equity, No. 476, Sess. 1842.) The act 5 Vict. c. 5, § 63, directs the Accountant-General to cause to be laid before Parliament every year an account showing the state of the Suitors' Fund and the Suitors' Fee Fund, which stand in his name. The Suitors' Fund consists of money and stock unclaimed, but which are open to claim at any time. On the 1st of October, 1842, this fund amounted to 26,2991. cash, and 2,869,2131. stock. The Fee Fund accrues from fees formerly payable to the different officers of the court for their own advantage. These fees amounted to 62,8087. in the year ending Nov. 1842. The salaries of the lord chancellor, the vice-chancellors, and other officers of the Court of Chancery are paid out of these two funds. accumulate the income thereof, either wholly or partially, "for any longer term than the life or lives of any such grantor or grantors, settlor or settlors, or the term of twenty-one years from the death of any such grantor, settlor, devisor, or testator, or during the minority or respective minorities of any person or persons who shall be living or in ventre sa mere at the time of the death of such grantor, devisor, or testator, or during the minority or respective minorities only of any person or persons who, under the uses or trusts of the deed, surrender, will, or other assurances directing such accumulations, would for the time being, if of full age, be entitled to the rents, issues, and profits, or the interest, dividends, and annual produce so directed to be accumulated. And in every case where accumulation shall be directed otherwise than as aforesaid, such direction shall be null and void, and the rents, issues, profits, and produce of such property so directed to be accumulated shall, so long as the same shall be directed to be accumulated contrary to the provisions of this act, go to and be received by such person or persons as would have been entitled thereto, if such accumulation had not been directed." Sect. 2 provides, "that nothing in this act contained shall extend to any provision for payment of debts of any grantor, settlor, or devisor, or other person or persons, or to any provision for raising portions for any child or children of any person taking any interest under any such conveyance, settlement, or devise, or to any direction touching the produce of timber or wood upon any lands or tenements; but that all such provisions shall be made and ACCUMULATION. [CAPITAL.] given as if this act had not passed." Sect. ACCUMULATION. An act of Par-3 provides that the act shall not extend liament (39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 98), after to dispositions of heritable property in declaring in the preamble that "it is ex- Scotland. pedient that all dispositions of real or personal estates, whereby the profits and produce thereof are directed to be accumulated or the enjoyment thereof postponed, should be made subject to the restrictions thereinafter contained," proceeds to enact to the following effect, No person can settle or dispose of property by deed, will, or otherwise, so as to Before the passing of the act 5 Vict. c. 5, for suppressing the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, there was an Accountant-General of that court; and in April, 1841, a sum of 2,730,8621. was standing in his name in the Bank of England. The account is now transferred to the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery. The duties of the Accountant-General and Masters of the Exchequer are now performed by the Queen's Remembrancer. There is an Accountant-General of the Irish Court of Chancery. This act was passed in consequence of the will of Peter Thellusson, a Genevese by birth, but settled in London, who died in 1797, leaving a landed estate worth about 4000l. a year, and personal property to the amount of 600.000l. He devised and bequeathed this large property to trustees upon trust to accumulate the annual proceeds of his property and |