Letters of David Ricardo to Thomas Robert Malthus, 1810-1823 Part 7

... I have paid Wettenhall 2 8_s._ for two years' lists, but it has since occurred to me that I paid him and you paid me for one year, and therefore that only one year can be due to him. If so, let me know, that I may get back 1 4_s._

Ever yours, DAVID RICARDO.

XXIV.

_10th Feb., 1815._

MY DEAR SIR,

I shall accept your kind invitation, and intend being with you on Sat.u.r.day evening at the usual time. We can then talk over the points on which we differ. I will bring with me the papers on which I have been busy since you left London, and in which my objections are more fully stated than can be done in the compa.s.s of a letter[76].

In the case of the Scotch farmers who made such large profits on their capital during the latter part of their leases[77], they appear to me to have been enjoying rent, arising not from improvements in agriculture, but from poorer land being taken into cultivation. If their leases had expired sooner, rent would have been increased long before on those farmers. It would be desirable to know what the rent on those farms was when the lease was originally granted, or rather what proportion it bore to the capital then employed and what the proportion of rent is to the capital now employed.

The effects of monopoly cannot, I think, be felt till no more land can be advantageously cultivated. You have yourself said, and I very much admire the pa.s.sage[78], that the last portion of capital employed on the land yields only the common profits of stock, and does not afford any rent. If so, corn, like everything else, is regulated in its price by the cost of production, and every other portion of capital employed on the land is reduced to the same level of profits only because no more capital can be employed with more advantage, and all which it anywhere yields more is rent and not profit.

I have read the Appendix[79] also with great attention, and cannot help thinking that you have quite thrown off the character of impartiality to which, in the Observations, I thought you fairly ent.i.tled. You are avowedly for restrictions on importation; of that I do not complain. It is not easy to estimate justly the dangers to which we may be exposed.

Those who are for an open trade in corn may underrate them, and it is possible that you may overrate them. It is a most difficult point to calculate these dangers at their fair value; but in an economical view, although you have here and there allowed that we might be benefited by importing cheap rather than by growing dear, you point out many inconveniences which we should suffer from the loss of agricultural capital and from other causes, which would make it appear as if even economically you thought we ought to import corn,--such is the approbation with which you quote from Adam Smith of [_sic_] the benefits of agriculture over commerce in increasing production[80], and which I cannot help thinking is at variance with all your general doctrines.

Your observations on the advantages (and therefore on the injustice to other cla.s.ses) which the stockholder would reap from a low price of corn are, I think, very correct; but I do not think these objections should stand in the way of the general good. They, the stockholders, have at different periods suffered much, and, if the sinking fund be now appropriated to other services[81], another striking injustice will be added to the long list. I meant to write only a few lines and have filled a long letter....

Yours very truly, DAVID RICARDO.

XXV.

LONDON, _9th March, 1815_.

MY DEAR SIR,

My acquaintance lies so little amongst political economists that I have very few opportunities of knowing whether what you consider as my peculiar opinions have any supporters, or indeed are read or attended to. As for my own judgment on the subject, it is perhaps too partial to merit attention; but after my best efforts not to be bia.s.sed in favour of my own opinions, I continue to think them correct.

I would indeed rather modify what I said concerning the stationary state of the prices of commodities under all the variations of the price of corn, either from wealth on the one hand or the importation from foreign countries or improvements in agriculture on the other. I made no allowance for the altered value of the raw material in all manufactured goods[82]. They would, I think, be subject to a variation in price not on account of increased or diminished wages, but on account of the rise or fall in the price of the raw produce which enters into their composition, and which in some commodities cannot be inconsiderable. It is a matter of mortification to me that my execution has been so faulty; I was too much in a hurry, and have not made my meaning intelligible even to those who are familiar with such subjects, much less to those who skim over these matters.

Since I have seen you I received a note from Mr. Edward West, who is the author writing under the t.i.tle of a Fellow of University College; he speaks in favour of my opinions of course, because they are very similar to his own. I have read his book with attention, and I find that his views agree very much with my own. He is a barrister, a young man, and appears very fond of the study of political economy. Mr. Brougham has, I think he said, promised to introduce him to you. Mr. Jacob[83] has handled both him and me rather roughly; but he will not condescend to argue with us. I shall be very easy if he is the most formidable opponent that is to attack me, for he seems totally ignorant of the scientific part of the subject.

The opposition to the bill[84] is more formidable than I expected, but they appear so determined in the House of Commons, that I suppose it will finally pa.s.s. I regret that the people should have proceeded to acts of riots and outrage. I am too much a friend to good order to wish to succeed through such means, besides that I am persuaded that they hurt rather than promote the object which they and I have in view.

I wish you could have dined with me on Sat.u.r.day. I expect Mr.

Phillips[85] and Mr. Dumont; it would be a very agreeable surprise to me if you should join our party. Perhaps you may be inclined to come to London and wil[l] take a bed in Brook Street. Do if you can [and] do not think it necessary to write on purpose to say you cannot. I shall fully depend on your staying with us when you come to the next club.

Sir F. Burdett and some others think that the high price of our corn is owing to enormous taxation, and that it ought not nor cannot fall without oppression to the landholders till our debt is diminished. If I could convince myself that any part of the price of corn was owing to taxation, I should be in favour of a protecting duty to that amount.

But, if he were right, the high price would not be accompanied by high rents or by the cultivation of inferior lands. These I consider as unequivocal marks of the high price being caused by wealth and a scarcity of fertile land. Indeed my theory leads me to think that no taxes but those directly on the land or on its produce would raise the price of corn, and even such taxes would have no effect if all exportable commodities were taxed in the same degree, for a tax on exportable commodities in a country which imports corn does not act very differently from a duty on the importation of corn. Kind regards to Mrs.

Malthus.

Ever yours, DAVID RICARDO.

XXVI.[86]

UPPER BROOK STREET, _14 March, 1815_.

MY DEAR SIR,

I have read Mr. Torrens' pamphlet[87] and think it on the whole a very able performance. I differ with him in most of his views in chap. 2, part 2, with many of the 3rd chap., and with a few in the remainder of the work. I am glad to hear that you are going to make some observations on it[88]. I think he is an adversary worthy of your pen, and the friends of truth cannot fail to profit by the discussion. With regard to any remarks on my opinions, you must be governed by your own discretion.

If those opinions are wrong, I should like to see them refuted, but, thinking as I do that they are in all essential points founded on correct principles, I ask for no mercy. I do not care how severely they are attacked; there is nothing you could say of them which would hurt me, if what you said did not express contempt, and that I know you do not feel for me. Act therefore towards me as if I were a perfect stranger, and notice me or not as you think best.

I cannot hesitate in agreeing with you that, if from a rise in the relative value of corn less is paid for fixed capital and wages, more of the produce must remain for the landlord and farmer together; this is indeed self-evident, but is really not the matter in dispute between us, and I cannot help thinking that you overlook some of the circ.u.mstances most important connected with the question. My opinion is that corn can only permanently rise in its exchangeable value when the real expenses[89] of its production increase. If 5000 quarters of gross produce cost 2500 quarters for the expenses of wages, etc., and 10,000 quarters cost double, or 5000 quarters, the exchangeable value of corn would be the same; but, if the 10,000 quarters cost 5500 quarters for the expenses of wages, etc., then the price would rise 10 p.c., because such would be the amount of the increased expenses. A rise of the price of corn and a fall in the corn price of labour is [_sic_] in my opinion incompatible, unless it be owing to something in the currency; and it is not necessary to enquire here what effects that would produce. Observe that I do not question that each individual labourer may receive a less corn price of labour, because I believe that would be the case, but I question whether the whole corn amount of wages, etc., paid for the cultivation of the land can be diminished with an increase of the exchangeable value of corn. If no more labourers were employed and the price of corn rose, your proposition could not be disputed; but the cause of the rise of the price of corn is solely on account of the increased expense of production.

I have lost Lord Lauderdale's pamphlet[90], or rather it has been taken from my office. If I can get another, it sha[ll] accompany this. The improvement[s] in agriculture I believe have had more effect in kee[ping] down r[ents] than we have ever imagined. On my theory they fully account for rents being no higher; on yours they would tell the other way.

I meant to reproach you when I saw you [for[91]] speaking of Mr. Jacob's pamphlet with so much [praise[91]] as you did when Mr. Basevi[92] asked your opinion of it. I am glad you allow he is very deficient in scientific knowledge.

You will see by what I have said that a rise in the price of corn is always in my opinion accompanied by a less material surplus produce; but it may be of equal value as compared with other things. Of this produce the landlord gets so large a share that in spite of the rise of produce the situation of the farmer is constantly getting worse.

Yours very truly, DAVID RICARDO.

XXVII.

LONDON, _17 March, 1815_.

MY DEAR SIR,

If your statement[93] was correct, this extravagant consequence would follow from it: That in proportion as population increased and worse land was brought under cultivation, the proportion of produce to the corn expenses of procuring it would increase. If we now had twenty millions of quarters with an expense of five millions of quarters, we should when we expended ten millions of quarters obtain more than forty[94], notwithstanding that in the latter period many more than double the quant.i.ty of hands were employed in cultivation in consequence of the poorer quality of the land. If this be true, the principle of population is false, because the more you increase the people, the greater surplus of abundance will appear. Your statement is however very ingenious, and carries a great deal of plausibility with it; but I think you err in supposing it possible that the proportion of the whole corn expenditure to the produce obtained can fall, with an increase of the price of corn. The two are incompatible; either the whole corn expenses of production will be increased or not. If they be, the price of corn will rise; but, if they be not, I can see no reason for a rise in the price of corn. I admit that it is only the last portion of capital employed on the land which will be attended with an increased corn expense; but, unless it renders the whole produce together at an increased expense, the price of produce will not rise. Suppose the produce of the country ten millions of quarters with the price at 4 per quarter, the number of labourers employed two-and-a-half millions, each receiving two quarters of corn annually as wages. Suppose too that the population increases and five millions of quarters more are required, but that it cannot be obtained with less labour than that of two millions of men. If we suppose the price to increase in proportion to the number of men employed, it will rise to 4 16_s._, because to raise ten millions of quarters an average of three millions of men would be now required instead of two-and-a-half millions. Suppose now each man to consume one quarter annually for food and to exchange the remainder for other necessaries. Fourteen bushels will be sufficient wages for him[95]; the expenditure of corn for wages will then be for fifteen millions of produce 7.875.000, and for ten millions 5.250.000. Before, it was only five millions; consequently the proportion of surplus produce has diminished.

In making this calculation I have very much favoured your view of the question, because the price of corn would not, I think, rise in proportion to the greater number of men employed but to the greater amount of wages paid; it would not therefore rise to 4 16_s_., but to 4 4_s_., because as 5 : 5-1/4 :: 4 : 4 4_s_. But, if the price was only 4 4_s_., more corn would be required by the labourer than fourteen bushels, that calculation being founded on a greater exchangeable value of corn. It appears too that your statement if true does not account for the less proportion of the population now emp[loyed upon] the land, because you always suppose more men to [be employed] but at less corn wages. It can never happen, I think, that profits can fall and encourage the cultivation of poor [land in] the manner a.s.sumed in my table without a rise in the price of corn. It is by the rise of the price of corn that all other profits are regulated to agricultural profits. If the price of corn remained low, money wages would not rise, and general profits could not fall. If it be true that capital has become more and more productive on the land, it can, I think, only be accounted for on the supposition that great improvements have taken place in agriculture, and that wages have been kept moderate by the improvements in those manufactures which supply the poor with the necessaries on which a part of their wages are expended.

What a dreadful change in our political horizon has occurred within a few days[96]! Will it be possible to remain at peace if Bonaparte establishes himself as sovereign of France? The prospect is very gloomy.

... Ever yours, DAVID RICARDO.

XXVIII.

LONDON, _21 March, 1815_.

MY DEAR SIR,