After execution, a deed may become void by erasure, interlineation, or other alteration in any material part; but, generally speaking, such alterations will be presumed to have been made before the execution, if nothing appear to the contrary, or there be no cause to suspect that it has been done in a clandestine manner. A grantee may also disclaim the grant or disagree thereto; and a deed may be destroyed or cancelled, but such destruction or cancellation will not revest the thing granted in the grantor, though all personal engagements established by the deed between the parties will be put an end to. If the seal is broken from the deed, the covenants contained in it are void. If the deed has transferred property from one person to another, the property continues transferred, just as if the deed existed; but if the seal is any way destroyed, the covenants which are to be executed are destroyed, because when any legal proceeding is taken upon the deed, it must be pleaded as a deed, and it is not the deed of the party whose deed it professes to be, if that mark is destroyed which is the legal evidence of its being his deed. But as long as the seal is on a deed, and the deed exists entire, so long is the party, whose deed it is, bound by the covenants. In the case of a bond, which is a deed by which a man binds himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, to pay a certain sum of money to another at a time named, length of time was formerly no legal bar to an action upon it; yet it was a ground for a jury presuming that it had been satisfied. But by the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, actions upon specialties, that is, founded upon instruments which are deeds, must be brought within twenty years after the cause of action has arisen.

The effect of the seal remaining is sometimes an unexpected surprise to a man. If a man has taken a lease for a term of years of premises, with covenants to repair, and at the expiration of the lease should agree with his landlord to become tenant from year to year, he should get the seal off the lease in the landlord's hands. If he does not, the landlord may still make him repair by virtue of the seal, if he brings his action

within the time fixed by law, for the judges have decided that, though tenant from year to year, he is bound by the original covenants.

(Butler, n. Co. Litt. 295 b.; Shepherd, Touchstone; Dixon; Co. Litt.; Cruise's Digest.)

DEER-STEALING. [GAME LAWS.]
DEFAMATION. [SLANDER.]
DEGREE. [UNIVERSITY.]

DEL CREDERE COMMISSION. [AGENT.]

DELEGATES, COURT OF, was the great court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes, and from the decisions of the Admiralty Court. It was so called because the judges were delegated or appointed by the king's commission under the great seal; they usually consisted of judges of the courts at Westminster and doctors of the civil law, but lords spiritual and temporal might be joined. This court was established by the statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, which was passed in consequence of the practice of appealing to the pope at Rome from the decisions of the English courts in the above-mentioned matters.

Appeals lay to the court of delegates in three cases-1, where sentence was given in any ecclesiastical cause by the archbishop or his official; 2, where any sentence was given in an ecclesiastical cause in place exempt; 3, where sentence was given in the admiralty, in suits civil and marine, according to the course of the civil law. After sentence by the delegates, the king might grant a commission of review; but the power was rarely exercised, except upon the ground of error in fact or in law, and it was usual to refer the memorial praying for a commission of review to the chancellor, before whom the expediency of granting the prayer was argued.

By statute 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, the Court of Delegates was abolished, and its powers and functions were transferred to the king in council, and by the same statute it is enacted that the decision of the king in council shall be final, and that no commission of review shall in future be granted. (Cowell's Intreprcter; Blackstone, Com.) [ADMIRALTY COURTS; ARCHES COURT OF; PRIVY COUNCIL.]

DEMAND AND SUPPLY are terms used in political economy to express the relations between consumption and production-between the demand of purchasers and the supply of commodities by those who have them to sell. The relations between the demand for an article and its supply determine its price or exchangeable value [VALUE]: the relations between the demand for labour and its supply determine the amount of wages to be earned by the labourer [WAGES]. For causes explained elsewhere, the price of an article will rarely vary, for any length of time, very much above or below its cost of production ;* nor will the wages of labour, for any length of time, much exceed or fall below the amount necessary to maintain labourers and their families in such comforts as their habits of life have accustomed them to believe necessary for their subsistence; but bearing in mind that, in the prices of commodities and labour, there is a certain point, determined by causes independent of demand or supply, above or below which prices cannot materially vary for any considerable time: all variations of price, if the medium in which they are calculated remains unchanged, may be referred to the proportion which exists between the demand for commodities and the supply of them-between the quantities which purchasers are willing and able to buy, and the quantities which producers are able and willing to sell.

To have any influence upon prices a demand must be accompanied by the means of purchasing. A demand is not simply a want-a desire to obtain and enjoy the products of other men's labour; for if this were its meaning, there would never be the least proportion between demand and supply: all men would always want everything, and production could not keep pace with consumption. But an "effective demand," as it is termed by

"Cost of production" is used by political economists in a sense different from that of com.

merce, and includes profits. (See M'Culloch's edition of Adam Smith, c. 7.) It means, in fact, the price below which no man would continue to sell his goods. An ordinary profit is a part of the cost of production in an enlarged sense, as much as the expense of wages and materials.

Adam Smith, exists wherever one man is anxious to exchange the products of his own labour for that of other men. It is, therefore, of an effective demand only that political economists are speaking when they examine the circumstances of demand and supply in connexion with prices.

But although a demand, without the means of purchase, cannot affect prices, the universal desire of mankind to possess articles of comfort and luxury suggests other important considerations. As this desire is natural to man, and too often is so strong as to tempt him even to commit crime, it obviously needs no encouragement; men will always gratify it whenever they have the means, and these means consist in the products of their own labour. Hence all that is required to convert this desire of acquisition into an effective demand is ample employment for industry. Increase the production of all commodities and an increased consump→ tion of them is the certain result; for, men having larger products of their own la bour to offer in exchange for the products of other men's labour, are enabled to purchase what they are always eager to acquire. Production, therefore, is the great object to be secured, not only as furnishing a supply of commodities necessary and useful to mankind, but also as creating an effective demand for them. When trade is depressed by a languid demand, it is commonly said that increased consumption is all that is required to restore its prosperity. But how is this consump tion to be caused? The desire to consume is invariable, and thus any falling off in consumption must be attributed to a diminished production in some departments of industry which causes an inability to consume. When production is restored, an effective demand for all articles will immediately follow; but until the productive energies of the consumers are in a state of activity it is in vain to expect from them an increased demand.

These considerations lead us to the conclusion that a universal glut of all commodities is impossible. The supply of particular commodities may easily exceed the demand for them, and very often does exceed it; but as the constant desire

to obtain commodities needs nothing but the power of offering other commodities in exchange, to become an effective demand, it is evident that a universal increase of production is necessarily accompanied by a proportionate increase of consumption. Men are stimulated by no love of production for its own sake, but they produce in order to consume directly, or because by exchanging their produce with others they are able to enjoy the various comforts and luxuries which they are all desirous of obtaining. Active production, therefore, in all departments of industry causes a general and effective demand for commodities, which will continue to be equal to the supply unless it be checked by war, by restrictions upon commerce, or by other circumstances which prevent a free interchange of commodities.

A country is in the highest prosperity when there is an active and steady demand for commodities and labour, and a sufficient supply of them. Any disturbance of the proportion between one and the other is injurious to the community; and the injury is greater or less according to the extent and duration of such disturbance. When the proportion is well adjusted, the whole community derive benefit from the circumstance, both as producers and consumers; when it is disturbed, they are injured in both capacities.

Having described thus generally the nature and causes of demand, and its intimate connexion with supply, it becomes necessary to examine the influence of demand and supply upon one another, and upon production, consumption, prices, and profits. This influence varies according to the circumstances of the market, and the nature of the commodities to which its laws may be applied. These may be best understood by considering, 1st, the effects of a demand exceeding the supply; and, 2ndly, of a supply exceeding the demand.

1. The first effect of a demand exceeding the supply of a commodity, is to raise its price. As more persons want to buy the commodity than the producers are able or willing to supply, they cannot all obtain what they desire; but must share the supply between them in

some manner. But their wants are very much regulated by the cost of gratifying them. One man would purchase an article for a shilling for which he may be unwilling or unable to pay two; while others, rather than forego the purchase, will consent to pay that amount. Those who have commodities to sell, finding that they have more customers than they can satisfy, immediately infer that they are selling them too cheaply, and that they could dispose of all their stock at a higher price. The price is accordingly raised, when the sale becomes limited to those who are not restrained from buying by the increased price. In principle, though not in outward form, the market is in the nature of an auction. The sellers endeavour to obtain the highest price for their goods; the price rises with the eagerness of those who wish to buy, and the highest bidders only secure the prizes. In the market, however, the competition of the buyers is not perceptible amongst themselves except through the prices demanded. Their competition determines the prices, but the sellers judge of its extent, and regulate their demands so as to obtain the greatest possible advantage from it.

Some commodities are positively necessary for the support of the people, of which the supply may fall very short of the demand and be incapable of increase. This is the case when there is a bad harvest in a country which is excluded from a foreign supply by war or by fiscal restrictions. Here the price rises in proportion to the deficiency of the crops. The competition for food is universal. Some, indeed, may be driven to the consumption of inferior articles of food, and others to a diminished consumption; but all must eat. The number of consumers is not diminished, while the supply is reduced; and the price must, therefore, rise and continue high until a fresh supply can be obtained. In a siege the competition is still greater. The prices of provisions become enormous: the rich alone can buy; the poor must starve or plunder.

A similar effect is produced if the supply, without being deficient, be confined to the possession of a small number of persons, who limit it to the consumers

How

in order to secure higher prices. ever abundant corn might be in a besieged town, if one man were exclusively authorised by law to sell it, it might rise to a famine price, unless the people broke into the granaries, or the government interfered with the monopoly. Less in degree but similar in principle is the effect upon prices of every limitation of the market by fiscal restrictions. When any sellers are excluded, the others are enabled to raise their prices.

These are cases in which the supply cannot be increased to meet the demand, or in which the supply is monopolized. But the greater number of commodities may be increased in quantity, and the supply of them is not artificially limited. The price of these also rises when the demand exceeds the supply: but the increased price raises the profit of the producer and attracts the competition of others in the market. Fresh capital and labour are applied to the production of the profitable article, until the supply is accommodated to the demand or exceeds it. The prices gradually fall, and at length the profits are reduced to the same level as the profits in other undertakings, or even lower. The encouragement to further production is thus withdrawn, and prices are adjusted so as to secure to the producers the ordinary rate of profits, and

no more.

But sometimes the demand for a commodity is diminished, if the supply fall short of it for any considerable time. There are various articles useful and agreeable to mankind but not essential to their existence, which they are eager to enjoy as far as they can, but for which they are not prepared to make great sacrifices. When the price of an article of this description is raised by a deficient supply, continuing for some length of time, it is placed beyond the reach of many persons who learn to regard it with indifference. They would buy it if it were cheap; but as it is dear, they go without it or are satisfied with a substitute. In this manner the number of consumers is diminished. Others again, who will not be deprived of an accustomed luxury, enjoy it more sparingly, and consume it in less quantities. But so

long as the supply is not increased, the price will continue high, because the consumers who still purchase the article, notwithstanding its price, keep up an effective demand equal to the whole supply; while there is still a dormant demand, only awaiting a reduction of price to become effective.

For the same reasons a demand for articles is diminished when their price is artificially raised by taxation. The demand is gradually confined to a smaller number of persons, and many consume more sparingly. [TAX, TAXATION.]

In these various ways demand and supply become adjusted through the medium of price, whenever the one exceeds the other. This is the result of natural laws, the operation of which is of the highest value to mankind. If the supply be incapable of increase, it economises consumption: if the supply can be increased, it encourages production. In either case it is of great benefit to the consumer. To revert, for a moment, to the example of a bad harvest in a country excluded from all foreign supply. Suppose that prices did not rise, but remained precisely the same as if the harvest had been abundant, what would be the consequence? The whole population would consume as much bread as usual, and use flour in every way that luxury points out, unconscious of any scarcity. Farmers might even feed their cattle with wheat. By reason of this improvidence the whole of the corn would be consumed before the next harvest, and the horrors of famine would burst, without any warning, upon a people living as if they were in the midst of plenty. This evil is prevented by a rise of prices, which is a symptom of scarcity, just as pain is a symptom of disease. By timely precaution the danger is averted. A high price renders economy and providence compulsory, and thus limits consumption. The supply, therefore, instead of being exhausted before the next harvest, is spread over the whole year. In the case of food it is true that such economy is painful and presses heavily upon the poor: but this evil is a mercy compared with famine. If no privation had been endured before scarcity became alarming, none but rich men could buy a loaf: for every one who

These observations are also applicable in some measure to cases in which prices are raised by the supply being confined to one or to a few persons, who have contrived to buy up the whole or nearly the whole of any commodity. But such exclusive possession (sometimes improperly called a monopoly) cannot exist, for any length of time, in articles of which the supply is capable of increase. The extreme case has been put of a besieged town in which the whole supply of corn was monopolized by one man. Under those circumstances of course he would demand a high price; but unless his exclusive supply were upheld by law, it does not follow that the inhabitants would suffer on that account. A most provident consumption of food is absolutely necessary for the defence of a town, and no organization could distribute provisions according to the wants of the people so well as a system of purchase restrained by a high price. It must also be recollected that, without any such exclusive possession, the fact of the siege alone must raise prices by cutting off fresh supplies. If the siege continue, provisions are more likely to last out by the instrumentality of prices than by any other means. At the same time the sole possessor of the corn would be restrained from keeping back the supply beyond the actual necessity of the occasion by many considerations. He would know that if a popular tumult arose, if the town were relieved, the siege raised-a capitulation agreed to or the place suddenly carried by assault -the value of his exclusive property would be destroyed. His own interest, therefore, is coincident with that of the people. It is better for both that the supply should be meted out with parsimony; it is dangerous to both that it should be immoderately stinted.

In circumstances less peculiar than these, very little evil can arise from an exclusive possession of any commodity not protected directly or indirectly by law. If the supply be capable of increase, and the demand be sufficient to enable the owner to secure a high price, for reasons already explained, the market would rapidly be supplied from other quarters.

fact alone would raise the price; and it is probable that the supply would not have been so great without the extraordinary activity of the capitalist who had been able to secure for his country the whole accessible supply to be collected from the markets of the world.

A monopoly, properly so called, is of a totally different character: for however abundant the supply of an article may be, it may, nevertheless, be inaccessible to the consumer. [MONOPOLY.] Such monopolies were properly condemned so far back as the reign of James I. (21 James I. c. 3), although vast monopolies are still indirectly maintained by our fiscal laws. [TAX, TAXATION.] The legislature of this country, however, did not observe any distinction between a legal monopoly and the great speculative enterprises of commerce, miscalled monopolies; and severe penalties were inflicted both by the common and statute laws against offences called "badgering, forestalling, regrating and engrossing." The impolicy of such laws was gradually perceived. If prices were occasionally raised by speculations of this kind, yet the restraints upon commerce, which resulted from these laws, were infinitely more injurious to the consumer. Many of the statutes were therefore repealed by act 12 Geo. III. c. 71; but the common law, and all the statutes relating to the offences of forestalling, regrating, and engrossing, were not erased from our commercial code until the year 1844 (act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 24).

When prices are high by reason of the demand exceeding the supply, it is by no means necessary that the profits of those who sell the dear commodities should always be greater than the profits in other branches of trade. It must always be recollected, that where scarcity is the cause of the high price, the sellers who demand it have the less to sell. Where scarcity is not the cause, but the demand is great because the supply, notwithstanding the exertions of producers, cannot keep pace with it, the profits are undoubtedly greater than usual, until the supply has been increased.

II. It is now time to consider the