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 circumstances 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 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 quantity 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 16s., 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.