Letters of David Ricardo to Thomas Robert Malthus, 1810-1823 Part 20

Ever yours, DAVID RICARDO.

[Postscript.] I cannot agree with you that in the progress of the cultivation of America a mean between her corn and labour will remain nearly at the same price as it now is, estimated in money or in hogsheads of claret; it will in my opinion rise. Let me take your own supposition. A country produces her corn with half the labour of another country; consequently she employs only half the capital in producing a given quant.i.ty[251]. In this country corn will be at only half the price at which it is in another; 100 quarters will sell for 200, while in another it sells for 400. Suppose profits in both countries to be 20 per cent.; in one a capital of 166 will be employed in the raising of 100 quarters of corn, in the other 333 will be so employed, and 20 per cent. on each of these capitals will be on one 33, and on the other 66. To get 33 the one must have 16-1/2 quarters for his share of the 100 quarters, the other must have precisely the same quant.i.ty, and consequently 83-1/2 quarters are paid in both cases for wages and other charges. But the farmer in the fertile country employs only half the labour that the other employs, and consequently with the same money wages each labourer will have the command of double the quant.i.ty of corn, he will have what you call double real wages.

Now suppose that in the progress of the fertile country it [will] at last arrive at the state in which it is necessary to [emplo]y 333 instead of 166 to raise 100 quarters of corn; it is indeed possible, under the extravagant supposition with which we have commenced, that labour might continue at the same money price; but it is quite impossible that corn should not be doubled in money price, for twice the quant.i.ty of labourers at these uniform money wages would be required to produce it. If corn doubles in price and wages remain stationary, the mean between the two must necessarily rise, and consequently, estimated in claret or in money, a mean between her corn and labour cannot as you say remain nearly the same. If (as I had a right to suppose) labour in such a country was at a low money price, when corn could be produced with so much facility, the conclusion, when corn rose, would be much more in my favour.

I cannot allow that hats would fall in a progressive country because of a fall of profits. How can it be said that the cost of producing hats is reduced by a fall of profits, if a fall of profits must be accompanied by a rise of wages? Show me that a fall of profits may take place without a rise of wages in any fixed measure of value, and then I will yield this point. But _you_ have no right to talk of a fall of profits; your case is that of a progressive country with low profits and enormous wages. If of every 100 quarters of corn, where it can be produced with little labour, eighty-three be given to the labourers, while no more is given in countries where double the quant.i.ty of labourers are employed to produce 100 quarters of corn, _you_ are bound to say that wages are enormously high. In my measure of value they would not be enormously high: but the commodity on which wages were expended would be extravagantly low; at any rate we should both agree that profits in such a state of things would be very moderate.

It is hardly fair to tax you with so long a letter and so soon too!

Lx.x.x[252].

GATCOMB PARK, _11 Oct., 1821_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

It is certainly probable that the fault is with me in not understanding the proposition you submit to me; and it may arise as you say from my being too much prepossessed in favour of my own views; but I do not plead guilty to the charge of not giving the requisite degree of attention to the propositions themselves. You now say 'where have I made the supposition you impute to me? Surely not in my last letter. My first supposition was that profits would be 100 per cent. in the country where corn was obtained with double the facility, while it was 10 per cent. in all others.' If you had done so, then indeed I should be justly chargeable with inattention; but these were your words in the letter which I was answering, 'I will try an ill.u.s.tration. Suppose that corn, money and commodities were obtained in the great ma.s.s of nations, connected with each other by commerce, at a rate of 10 per cent., but that in one country half the quant.i.ty of labour only was necessary to produce corn, while other commodities were produced with as much labour as in the rest of the world;' not one word is said of profits being at a different rate in this country; and, as you had said that in the great ma.s.s of nations profits were at 10 per cent., I concluded that in this country also profits were supposed to be at 10 per cent. In this instance then you must acknowledge the fault was yours and not mine. You do indeed afterwards suppose that this single country exports its corn and obtains the high price of other countries for it, and by such means raises its profits to 100 per cent.; but this evidently would depend on the fact whether she would get the price of other countries or whether domestic compet.i.tion would lower the price of corn, in the countries to which it was exported, to the growing price of the exporting country.

This I now understand to be your case. If the country which raised its corn, with such great facility, were completely insulated from all other countries, you would probably allow that corn, in that country, would be cheap in proportion to the facility of producing it. You would allow this also if all other countries were determined to protect their own agriculture and absolutely refused to import foreign corn. But in the case of a free trade, then you think the price would rise in the exporting country to the level of the price of other countries, and consequently profits would be enormously high. If I could admit the fact of a high price, which I cannot do, I should adopt your conclusion. I should say that general profits would be higher than they had been before the rise in the price of corn. Rents would undoubtedly be higher, for the landlord would have at least the same portion of corn as before, and that portion would be greatly enhanced in value. Labour would be higher, because the labourer would require higher money wages when corn was doubled in price. And profits would be higher because the capitalist would have more corn than before at the same time that it bore a higher price. All these cla.s.ses would be benefited by the high relative value of corn to manufactured commodities, and the capitalist more particularly so, because amongst those manufactured commodities are to be found some of the necessaries of the labourer, and therefore by the payment of a less portion of corn to the labourer he would still have the command of a increased quant.i.ty of food and necessaries for himself and his family. The question then between us is--would the price of corn rise permanently or would it not, in the country which continued to possess the great facility of producing it?

There is only one case in which I think such a rise possible, and that is on the supposition that the whole capital of the country was employed in producing corn, and yet could not produce it in sufficient quant.i.ty to satisfy the demand of other countries. In that case corn would be at a monopoly price, in the same manner as those rare wines which can only be produced in particular districts are at a monopoly price, because compet.i.tion could not have its full effect. In the article of corn it would be limited by the scarcity of capital, which gave to the growers of corn large profits, in the same way as the East India Company or any other Company might make large profits. In the article of wine the price would be augmented by the scarcity of the land on which the grapes were grown, and would chiefly go to the landlord in [the] form of rent. But, supposing no monopoly, supposing capital to be so abundant that all the corn demanded could be supplied, then I hold it to be demonstrable that the price would sink to the growing price of it in the exporting country.

There is however another point on which we differ; you say a striking approximation to this actually exists in the case of America; the only difference is that the demand for labour has awarded a larger quant.i.ty of corn to the labourer, the effect of which has been to keep the rate of profit comparatively low. But you surely do not mean that the exchangeable value of the commodities exported by America are (_sic_) in the least degree affected by the quant.i.ty of corn awarded to the labourer. I do not think you are justified in your expectation that in consequence of the acc.u.mulation of capital in America any commodity should fall there until it ceased to possess the character of a monopolized commodity. Corn and the bulky commodities of America (which latter are always regulated by the price of corn) could not fall until corn was sold at a price depending on the quant.i.ty of labour actually expended on its production, and not on the demand of our countries. When that time came, it would cease to be a monopolized commodity, and would fall as well as profits to the fair compet.i.tion rates. I deny that America comes at all within your supposed case; and the proof is that, if you were to isolate America from all other countries, you would not lower her rate of profits, otherwise than by preventing her from receiving a supply of labour from other countries; but do the same thing to a country circ.u.mstanced as you have supposed, and profits would immediately fall from 100 to perhaps 20 per cent. Your case in fact is that of a country possessed of a particular commodity in very general demand, and on which compet.i.tion operates most feebly. We have often discussed this peculiar case, and have always agreed in our opinions on it. I confess, however, I am astonished to hear you say that this is the case of America; you might with as much reason contend that it was also the case of Russia, of Poland, of the Cape of Good Hope, of Botany Bay.

If indeed America could send her produce from the interior to Europe without expense, and if the ports of all countries were open freely to receive the corn with which America could, under the circ.u.mstances I have supposed, supply [them], then I should say the cases were similar; but, with the enormous expenses of sending corn from the interior of the country, America can really produce a very inconsiderable supply to Europe at an expense much less than Europe can grow it. You ask what can ent.i.tle me to suppose that corn will be at half the price in America that it is in other countries, and then argue on that supposition so contrary to the fact. I answer I did not apply my argument to America but to your case, which supposed a country to produce corn with half the labour which was required to produce it in other countries. If America can do this, then I apply it to America. You complain that I do not reason fairly with you, that my theory requires labour to be low in America; but you dispute my theory and refer to the actual state of things in America, where labour is high, and yet I contend that I have a right to suppose labour low. I was dealing with your case and not with America. With respect to America I am not in possession of the facts of her case, and I cannot admit that my theory requires the price of labour to be low in that country. It requires rent to be low, for without that there cannot be a great surplus produce to divide between the two other cla.s.ses, after satisfying the landlord. You will always make me say that profits depend on the low price of corn. I never do say so; I contend that they depend on wages, and, although in my opinion wages will be mainly regulated by the facility of obtaining necessaries, they do not entirely depend on such facility. You wish to confine me to that theory, but I reject it; it is none of mine, and I have often told you so. I think I _do_ show that your fact does not invalidate my theory, which you say I am bound to do, and I do not a.s.sume a different fact than the one you refer to in order to refute you. Surely it is fair to say 'for such and such reasons your conclusion is not correct, but my argument would have been still stronger against you, if, as I have a right to suppose, labour in such a country were cheap, because the necessaries of the labourer are there obtained with facility.' In a country situated as you suppose America to be I do not see what is to make her corn rise; it is already according to your arguments at a monopoly price and cannot rise above that price unless there should be a greater demand and a higher price in Europe, which you say regulates the price in America, or unless America should become so populous that the price of her corn should be regulated by the expense of growing it, as in other countries, and that expense should exceed the present expense in Europe. If your theory be correct, this may not happen in 150 years, notwithstanding the greatest acc.u.mulation of capital; but will not labour fall during all that time? If it does fall, then the mean between corn and labour will fall. But suppose the other case. Suppose the _cost_ price of corn in America should rise above the present cost price in Europe; is it conceivable that labour should fall under such circ.u.mstances? To me it appears impossible unless we suppose money to alter in value. In this case then also the mean between corn and labour would vary in value. If hats were produced under the same circ.u.mstances as money they would not fall in price in consequence of a fall of profits. If hats were produced by the employment of capital, and money were produced, as you suppose, without any capital, then I allow and have said so in my book[253], hats would fall in price with a fall of profits. But I say again that too much importance is attached to money; facility of production is the great and interesting point. How does that operate on the interests of mankind? You ask what is to become of the money before produced in a country which should grow its own corn with 10 per cent.

profit, if it had its facility of producing corn doubled, and profit, were to rise to 100 per cent.; you ask further whether she would not continue to produce money as well as other commodities as the profits of producing it would be also 100 per cent. If the facility of producing corn were doubled, a great deal of labour would be employed on other things, and therefore the corn and commodities of the country would altogether be of as great a money value as before, and would require the same quant.i.ty of money to circulate them. With respect to the production of more money that would depend on the demand for it and the prices of other things. I think the production of money would continue as before, but it is quite possible that there might be less encouragement to produce money than other things, and therefore capital might afford 100 per cent. profit in all employments except that one. I wonder you should refuse to a.s.sent to this obvious conclusion. You say it is your opinion that, if labour were to fall in consequence of improvements in agriculture before an increase of population had taken place, it could only be from glut and want of demand. Is this opinion consistent with another, which I think you hold, and in which I agree, that one of the regulators of the price of labour is the price of the necessaries of the labourer?

I have mentioned my suspicions respecting the writer of the article on population in the _Edinburgh Review_ to several persons. I will not utter them from this time. I hear nothing about Murray and Place. I hope your visit at Holland House was an agreeable one. Mrs. Ricardo unites with me in kind regards to Mrs. Malthus; we are all well and are leading gay lives, one week at Worcester Music meeting and Bromesberrow, another at Bath, etc.

Ever truly yours, DAVID RICARDO.

NOTE.--Francis Place, the radical tailor, is well known to every reader of Prof. Bain's Life of Mill (see e.g. p. 77). His book on Population, perhaps the best of the long series that followed the 'Essay' of Malthus, was published by Longman early in 1822. He differed from Malthus mainly on the nature of the preventive checks.

The collection of Sc.r.a.p Books known by his name in the British Museum library contains the following autograph letter of Malthus (whom he seems to have first known through Ricardo):--'Mr. Malthus sends to Mr. Place, at the request of Mr. Ricardo, the edition of the Essay on Population which was first published in reply to the speculations of Mr. G.o.dwin and other writers. The copy sent is the only one which Mr. Malthus has left. He will be much obliged to Mr.

Place, therefore, as soon as he has done with it, to send it to Mr.

Ricardo's house in Upper Brook St., to be kept till Mr. M. is in town, which will be in a fortnight. Mr. G.o.dwin, in his last work, has proceeded to the discussion of the principles of population with a degree of ignorance of his subject which is really quite inconceivable.' E. I. Coll. Feb. 19, 1821.

Lx.x.xI[254].

GATCOMB PARK, _27 Nov., 1821_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

Your excuse for not going on with the discussion which you commenced is ingenious, and I ought to be satisfied with it, as it is accompanied with a pretty compliment to me--indeed as pretty an one as could well be paid to a person who is so uniformly your adversary. I however agree with you;--we know each other's sentiments so well that we are not likely to do each other much good by private discussion. If I could manage my pen as well as you do yours, I think we might do some good to the public by a public discussion.

I am sorry that I shall be obliged to miss two of the Political Economy meetings[255], as I shall not be in London till towards the latter end of the month of January.

On the 7th of December I am to dine at Hereford, by invitation, with Hume, at a public dinner, which is to be given to him for the purpose of presenting him a silver tankard and a hogshead of cider, in token of the respect and grat.i.tude of the inhabitants of Hereford for his public services. Hume comes from town on the occasion, and is to be met at Ross at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, and escorted with due honour into Hereford. I hope everything will be conducted in an orderly and peaceable manner. I have a great aversion to a row.

I have not yet seen Torrens' book[256], nor shall I see it in all probability till I get to London. Torrens has some concern in the Champion, in which there is a paper weekly on Political Economy[257]. I think these essays are well done, but you probably would not agree with me in that opinion.

Ever yours, D. RICARDO.

NOTE.--This wide gap of more than a year between the eighty-first and the eighty-second letter of this collection may be filled up by a letter to Say (Oeuvres Diverses, p. 423), dated from London, 5th March, 1822, and being a somewhat tardy answer to Say's letter of July, 1821, quoted above, p. 182. He says in effect: We are nearer agreement than I thought, and your distinction of natural and costly utility ill.u.s.trated by the iron and the gold is objectionable only in point of expression. But it follows that commodities have a value equal to the quant.i.ty of labour spent on them, and that therefore if a pound of gold for example could be produced with less labour it would fall in value. You for your part therefore are bound to maintain it would be a less portion of our [social] wealth. Whereas for my part I do not estimate wealth by value, but by utility from whatever source derived. Your 'Catechisme' (of which Francis Place has just given me the 2nd edition) says that a man's wealth is in proportion to the value and not to the quant.i.ty of the things he possesses, but, as you add that that same value is estimated by the quant.i.ty of other things these same things will buy, wealth turns out to be in proportion to quant.i.ty of goods after all. If wealth is value, then to lessen all costs, so as to produce all things with less labour, would be to make the wealth of the world no greater.

After some remarks on the 'two loaves,' he concludes by saying that the Political Economy Club had made Say an honorary member. 'We hope in time to raise ourselves from a Club to the dignity of an Academy, and become a learned body with ever-increasing numbers.'

Say replies (1st May, 1822) that he gratefully accepts the honorary membership. As to the points discussed, some of their differences are merely verbal. His most important contention is that in production we exchange productive services for products, and the more products we obtain for them the more _value_ they have, and the richer we are. 'Moreover, I do not think that we should aim at giving abstract definitions especially of wealth,--definitions, that is to say, in which we should abstract from the possessor and the thing possessed. This was the method of medieval disputants, and this was the very reason they could never come to an understanding.

Too general a definition, which enters into none of the peculiarities of each several object, teaches us nothing.'

He concludes his letter by lamenting that his countrymen paid so little attention to economical questions. A full half of his audience in the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers consisted of foreigners--English, Russians, Poles, Germans, Spaniards, Portuguese, and Greeks. The Crown Prince of Denmark got private lessons from him.

Lx.x.xII.

BROMESBERROW PLACE, LEDBURY, _Dec. 16, 1822_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

A long time has elapsed since there has been any connection between us, and I take an early opportunity after my arrival in England to address a few lines to you princ.i.p.ally with a view of having some account of yourself and family, from your own pen. I have been actively employed since we last met, for not only have I wandered about Switzerland but I have been as far as Florence. In my way to Florence I deviated from the direct road to see Venice, and on my return from it I did the same thing in order to visit Genoa. Our journey has been an uncommonly prosperous one, for we have all enjoyed perfect health and have met with few or no difficulties. My companions as well as myself have very much enjoyed this tour. When I was at Geneva I saw a good deal of our friend Dumont, who accompanied us to Chamouny and returned with us to Geneva. At Coppet[258] I met M. Sismondi. He, the Duke of Broglie, and I had a long conversation on the points of difference between us: the Duke took my side, but after a long battle we each of us I believe remained in the same opinion that we commenced the discussion in. M. Sismondi has left a pleasing impression on my mind. Madame de Broglie had a great deal of patience and forbearance. She is, I think, a very agreeable lady. I stayed in Paris three weeks just previous to my return to England. M. de Broglie and the Baron de Stael arrived there after me. I had the pleasure of seeing them two or three times. I was very much pleased with M. Gallois[259], who made me acquainted with M. Destutt [de] Tracy[260], a very agreeable old gentleman, whose works I had read with pleasure. I do not entirely agree with him in his political economy; he is one of Say's school; there are, nevertheless, some points of difference between them. I saw Say several times, but our conversation did not turn much on subjects connected with political economy; he never led to those subjects, and I always fancied he did not much like to talk upon them.

His brother, Louis Say[261], has published a thick volume of remarks upon Adam Smith's, his brother's, your, and my opinions. He is not satisfied with any of us. His princ.i.p.al object is to show that wealth consists in the abundance of enjoyable commodities; he accuses us all of wishing to keep up what we call valuable commodities, without any regard to quant.i.ty, about which only the political economist should be anxious.

I do not believe that any of us will plead guilty to this charge. I feel fully a.s.sured that I do not merit it should be made against me.

M. Gamier[262] is dead; but previous to his death he had prepared an additional volume of notes for a new edition of his translation of the 'Wealth of Nations,' and which [_sic_] has lately been published. I had an opportunity of looking it over, and naturally turned to those places where he criticises me. He has bestowed a good deal of s.p.a.ce on his remarks upon my work, but they do appear to me quite irrelevant. Neither he nor M. Say have (_sic_) succeeded in at all understanding what my opinions are. Your name often occurs in this last volume. I believe he differed from you also, but I had not time to read the whole of his book.

I hope you have been very industrious in my absence, and that we shall soon see the new edition of your last work[263]. I am anxious to know how you deal with the difficult question of value. I shall read you with great interest and attention.

I am sorry to find the agricultural distress continue. I was in hopes that it would have subsided before this time. I suppose we shall hear much on this subject next session of Parliament, and that I shall be a mark for all the country gentlemen. There is not an opinion I have given on the subject which I desire to recall. I only regret that my adversaries do not do me justice, and that they put sentiments in my mouth which I never uttered. Dr. Copplestone in his article in the Quarterly Review[264] charges me with maintaining the absurd doctrine that the price of gold bullion is a sure test of the value of bullion and currency. A Mr. Paget has addressed a (printed) letter[265] to me, in which I am accused of holding the same opinion, and everybody knows how pertinaciously Cobbet[t] persists in saying that I have always done so. I must fight my cause as well as I can; I know it is an honest one (in spite of Mr. Western's[266] insinuations), and, if it be also founded in truth and on correct views, justice will be finally done to me.

I arrived in London the beginning of last week; I saw Tooke for a few minutes, and was glad to hear from him that he had been writing and was nearly ready for the press. I have a very good opinion of his judgment and of the soundness of his views; he will, I think, from his practical knowledge, throw much light on the question of the influence of an over-supply or of an increased demand, without a corresponding supply, on price[267].

I am now on a visit to my son. On the 27th I shall go to Gatcomb for a week. From the 3rd to the 17th January I shall be with Mrs. Austin at Bradley, Wottonunderedge, and from the 17th to the 2nd February with Mrs. Clutterbuck, Widcomb, Bath. Where shall you pa.s.s your holidays? Is there any probability of my seeing you at Bath? I should be glad to meet you there.

I read in the papers with much concern of the renewal of disturbances amongst the young men at the college. I know how distressing to you such insubordination is, and greatly regretted that you should have been again exposed to it. I hope that order was quickly restored.

I saw Mr. Whishaw in London for a few minutes. I am not without hopes of seeing him at Mrs. Smith's at Easton Grey, where I mean to pa.s.s two nights on my way to Bradley....

Believe me, Ever truly yours, DAVID RICARDO.

Lx.x.xIII.

LONDON, _29 April, 1823_.