To what extent the alterations in the value of the currency beyond the difference between bullion and paper are attributable to the Bank restriction, and the return to cash payments, it is by no means easy to say. That the currency would have fallen very considerably under the circumstances of the last war, and risen very considerably under the circumstances which accompanied the peace, although paper had been kept on a par with gold, I cannot feel the least doubt; and probably the only difference has been, that as the increase of paper beyond what would circulate at par with gold gave facilities to production, and to the bringing of poor land into cultivation during the war, it has tended to increase the glut and low prices since the peace.
But whatever may have been the pressure on the owners of land since the peace, they cannot have the slightest plea for an attempt to indemnify themselves at the expense of the public creditor. In the turns of the wheel of fortune all parties should have fair play; no class of persons can be justified in endeavouring to lift themselves up by using unfair and dishonourable means to pull others down; and least of all ought such means to be thought of by the landlords of this country, who, whatever inconveniences they may have suffered latterly, have unquestionably altogether benefited much more largely from the alterations in the value of the currency, than the very persons who in their opinion should be made to relieve them from their embarrassments.
London: Printed by C. Roworth,
Bell-Yard, Temple-Bar.
FOOTNOTES
[A] Mr. Ricardo, speaking of the commodities produced by the capitalist, says, “their whole value is divided into two portions only: one constitutes the profits of stock; the other the wages of labour.” (p. 107. 3d edit.) The language of Mr. Mill, in his Elements of Political Economy, is similar.
[B] This is very properly stated by Colonel Torrens, in his Production of Wealth, c. 1. p. 28.
[C] The effects of slow or quick returns, and of the different proportions of fixed and circulating capitals, are distinctly allowed by Mr. Ricardo; but in his last edition, (the third, p. 32.) he has much underrated their amount. They are both theoretically and practically so considerable as entirely to destroy the position that commodities exchange with each other according to the quantity of labour which has been employed upon them; but no one that I am aware of has ever stated that the different quantity of labour employed on commodities is not a much more powerful source of difference of value.
[D] Colonel Torrens, by representing capital under the form of certain quantities of cloth and corn, instead of value in labour, has precluded himself from the possibility of giving a just view either of value, profits, or effectual demand. An increase of cloth and corn from the same quantity of labour is of no avail whatever in increasing value, profits, or effectual demand, if this increased produce will not command so much labour as before, an event which is continually occurring, from deficiency of demand.
[E] Agricultural labour is taken for the obvious reasons that it is the commonest species of labour, that it directly produces the food of the labourer, and that it is the most immediately connected with the gradations of soil, and the necessary variations of profits. It is also assumed with Adam Smith, Mr. Ricardo, and other political economists, that, on an average, other kinds of labour continue to bear the same proportions to agricultural labour.
[F] In my last work, I thought that a mean between corn and labour might be a better measure of value than labour alone; but I am now convinced that I was wrong, and that labour alone is the true measure.