BOUNTY BOUUBON. 



general doctrine is assumed and presupposed, Uiat 

 the successful direction of talent or industry to the 

 species of art or mode of production indicated will be 

 beneficial to the public. The utility of the bounty 

 will depend upon the correctness of this assumption. 



All liouiities or premiums are not offered tor the 

 encouragement of domestic talent and industry to the 

 exclusion of foreign competition. Many of those 

 offered by the British and French governments, and 

 by private associations, are held out to all competitors 

 indiscriminately ; and, where the object is universal 

 improvement, this is one of the appropriate modes of 

 encouragement, though others concur with it, such 

 as the monopolies of copyrights and patents, and the 

 honours and distinctions conferred on those who make 

 any important improvement. But if the object be to 

 favour the domestic production of any article which 

 is consumed in great quantities, and the supply of 

 which will employ many hands, bounties are only 

 the first steps in promoting it ; for, when the species 

 of production is once introduced to an extent sufficient 

 for the supply of the consumption, or so far intro- 

 duced that it can readily be pushed to the limits of 

 the national demand, the production is more usually, 

 and may be more economically, sustained by a tax or 

 prohibition of the foreign substitute. It was, for in- 

 stance, a very expensive mode of encouraging the 

 domestic production of grain in Great Britain, to offer 

 a bounty upon the exportation, for it was buying a 

 place in t lie foreign market ; and though the bounty 

 went to the subjects of the kingdom, namely, the 

 British landholders, yet experience abundantly shows 

 that a government may oppress, derange, and, possi- 

 bly, paralyse its industry, by pensions, rewards, and 

 gratuities to its own subjects. The object of the 

 bounty was to encourage the home production, by 

 guaranteeing that the domestic should be generally 

 higher than the foreign market price, by the excess 

 of the amount of the bounty over that of the freight 

 paid on the exportation. If the government had, at 

 the same time, imposed an additional land-tax, pro- 

 portional to the enhancement of rents occasioned by 

 the corn-bounty, it would thus have derived a great 

 revenue. If the land-tax could, in this case, have 

 been exactly proportioned, on each estate, to the 

 enhancement of the rents in consequence of the 

 bounty, the bounty and land-tax would have consti- 

 tuted a tax on the consumption of wheat, without 

 affecting the value or rent of land. But no tax on 

 land seems to have been levied as a counterpart to 

 the bounty ; one object of which seems to have been 

 to promote the culture of grain, in order to provide 

 adequate supplies of so necessary an article, for which, 

 in time of war, it would be dangerous to depend upon 

 foreign sources. The other object was, probably, to 

 raise or sustain rents ; at least, as that was its ten- 

 dency, the agricultural interest would favour the 

 measure on this ground. But the result was the 

 payment of a tax, liy the nation, for the advantage 

 of the export trade in corn ; and the question then 

 arose, whether the advantages, direct and incidental, 

 of that trade, were sufficient to compensate for the 

 tax ; and, after a long experiment, the nation finally 

 became convinced that they were not so, and the 

 bounty was abolished. But they secured its objects, 

 in some degree, by a prohibition of the importation of 

 grain, except at times when the prices in the home 

 market rose to an unusual height, which was specified 

 in these acts, which have since been so modified, that, 

 at a certain price in the home market, the importation 

 becomes allowable at a certain duty, and, at a higher 

 rate of prices, the duty is less. The supply of the 

 home market is thus secured to the agriculturists, 

 within certain limits of price, and they are previously 

 certain of no other than domestic competitkm beiovr 



those prices : in short, they have the monopolj of 

 the home market as long as they throw into it a 

 quantity sufficient to supply the consumption, and 

 foreign grain is introduced only in case of a rise of 

 price apparently indicating an inadequate stock in 

 the country. The only way of making up the defi- 

 ciency of scant crops is by importation. If an ordi- 

 nary crop supplies a large export trade, a blight 

 would leave a smaller, or perhaps no deficiency of 

 the home production for the home consumption. But 

 no regulation, except the public granary system, would 

 provide against an occasional resort to foreign sup- 

 plies. It the present regulations secure a. production 

 commensurate with the consumption, in ordinary 

 years, it will be attended with nearly all the advan- 

 tages of the bounty system, without being liable to 

 its objections, which arise from the direct purchase 

 of a foreign export trade, without any means of mak- 

 ing that particular trade reimburse the expenditure. 

 This shows us one of the objections to the bounty 

 system, which is a mi/re cumbrous and burdensome 

 one than even that of monopolies, when applied di- 

 rectly and permanently to the supply of foreign 

 markets. It can be advantageously applied only at 

 the opening of such a trade, to meet a part of the 

 expense of the experiment ; and this is one of the 

 proper objects of this species of encouragement. One 

 other class of cases may, properly enough, be made 

 the subjects of bounties or premiums ; namely, the 

 productions of extraordinary efforts of ingenuity and 

 skill. A competition is in this way excited, by which 

 none suffers, and all the effects of which are benefi- 

 cial to a community. There is one other class ot 

 cases in which nations have offered bounties ; namely- 

 to species of industry in the prosecution of which the 

 national security is supposed to be, in some measure, 

 involved. lhj support of the British navy, for in- 

 stance, is supposed to depend, in some degree, upon 

 the fisheries, since these are considered to be one of 

 the great schools of seamen. The British govern- 

 ment, therefore, encourages this species of industry 

 by bounties. This kind of bounties has the effect of 

 reducing the price of fish in the British market. If 

 the reduction of the cost of this article increases the 

 consumption, and creates a large export, then the 

 bounty has the effect of training more seamen in this 

 branch of business than would otherwise resort to it. 

 The advantages, however, obtained by the bounty, 

 over what would result from the prohibition of foreign 

 fish, are, probably, inconsiderable, and are purchased 

 at a high price. Bounties are a more expensive 

 mode of encouragement than duties and prohibitions, 

 as the money must be first collected by a tax, and 

 then distributed in bounties a process in which a 

 loss of from two to twenty per cent is sustained. Of 

 the inutility of bounties, in general, the British 

 government has long been persuaded. The bounty 

 on the exportation or corn was repealed in 1815 ; and 

 the bounties on the exportation of linen and several 

 other articles ceased in 1830. 



BOURBON. The founder of this family, which has 

 governed France, Spain, the Two Sicilies, Lucca, and 

 Parma, (q. v.), was Robert the Strong, who, in 861, 

 became duke of Neustria, and, in 866, lost his life in 

 a battle against the Normans. Some trace his 

 descent from Pepin of Heristel, others from a natural 

 son of Charlemagne, and others from the kings of 

 Lombardy. It is certain that the two sons of this 

 Robert were kings of France. The elder, named 

 Eudes, ascended the throne in 888, and died in 898 ; 

 the younger, Robert, in 922, and died in 923. The 

 eldest son of this Robert was Hugh the Great, duke 

 of the Isle of France, and count of Paris and Orleans. 

 Hugh Capet, son of Hugh the Great (grea*t grandson 

 j of Robert the Strong), founded the third French dy- 



