No More Learning

_ of such debased money might be of no more value than
the gold in one guinea. By restoring the silver currency to its mint
value, silver money would rise; but it would appear as if gold fell, for
a guinea would probably be of no more value than 21 of such good
shillings.

If now gold be also made a legal tender, and every debtor be at liberty
to discharge a debt by the payment of 420 shillings, or twenty guineas,
for every 21_l. _ that he owes, he will pay in one or the other according
as he can most cheaply discharge his debt. If with five quarters of
wheat he can procure as much gold bullion as the mint will coin into
twenty guineas, and for the same wheat as much silver bullion as the
mint will coin for him into 430 shillings, he will prefer paying in
silver, because he would be a gainer of ten shillings by so paying his
debt. But if on the contrary he could obtain with this wheat as much
gold as would be coined into twenty guineas and a half, and as much
silver only as would coin into 420 shillings, he would naturally prefer
paying his debt in gold. If the quantity of gold which he could procure
could be coined only into twenty guineas, and the quantity of silver
into 420 shillings, it would be a matter of perfect indifference to him
in which money, silver or gold, it was that he paid his debt. It is not
then a matter of chance; it is not because gold is better fitted for
carrying on the circulation of a rich country, that gold is ever
preferred for the purpose of paying debts; but simply because it is the
interest of the debtor so to pay them.

During a long period previous to 1797, the year of the restriction on
the Bank payments in coin, gold was so cheap, compared with silver, that
it suited the Bank of England, and all other debtors, to purchase gold
in the market, and not silver, for the purpose of carrying it to the
mint to be coined, as they could in that coined metal more cheaply
discharge their debts. The silver currency was during a great part of
this period very much debased, but it existed in a degree of scarcity,
and therefore on the principle which I have before explained, it never
sunk in its current value. Though so debased, it was still the interest
of debtors to pay in the gold coin. If indeed the quantity of this
debased silver coin had been enormously great, or if the mint had issued
such debased pieces, it might have been the interest of debtors to pay
in this debased money; but its quantity was limited and it sustained its
value, and therefore gold was in practice the real standard of
currency.

That it was so, is no where denied; but it has been contended that it
was made so by the law which declared that silver should not be a legal
tender for any debt exceeding 25_l. _, unless by weight, according to the
mint standard.

But this law did not prevent any debtor from paying any debt, however
large its amount, in silver currency fresh from the mint; that the
debtor did not pay in this metal, was not a matter of chance, nor a
matter of compulsion, but wholly the effect of choice; it did not suit
him to take silver to the mint, it did suit him to take gold thither. It
is probable that if the quantity of this debased silver in circulation
had been enormously great, and also a legal tender, that a guinea would
have been again worth thirty shillings; but it would have been the
debased shilling that would have fallen in value, and not the guinea
that had risen.

It appears then, that whilst each of the two metals was equally a legal
tender for debts of any amount, we were subject to a constant change in
the principal standard measure of value. It would sometimes be gold,
sometimes silver, depending entirely on the variations in the relative
value of the two metals, and at such times the metal, which was not the
standard, would be melted, and withdrawn from circulation, as its value
would be greater in bullion than in coin. This was an inconvenience
which it was highly desirable should be remedied, but so slow is the
progress of improvement, that although it had been unanswerably
demonstrated by Mr. Locke, and had been noticed by all writers on the
subject of money since his day, a better system was never adopted till
the last session of Parliament, when it was enacted that gold only
should be a legal tender for any sum exceeding forty-two shillings.

Dr. Smith does not appear to have been quite aware of the effect of
employing two metals as currency, and both a legal tender for debts of
any amount; for he says that "in reality, during the continuance of any
one regulated proportion between the respective values of the different
metals in coin, the value of the most precious metal regulates the value
of the whole coin. " Because gold was in his day the medium in which it
suited debtors to pay their debts, he thought that it had some inherent
quality by which it did then, and always would regulate the value of
silver coin.

On the reformation of the gold coin in 1774 a new guinea fresh from the
mint would exchange for only twenty-one debased shillings; but in the
reign of King William, when the silver coin was in precisely the same
condition, a guinea also new and fresh from the mint would exchange for
thirty shillings. On this Mr. Buchanan observes, "here, then, is a most
singular fact, of which the common theories of currency offer no
account; the guinea exchanging at one time for thirty shillings, its
intrinsic worth in a debased silver currency, and afterwards the same
guinea exchanged for only twenty-one of those debased shillings. It is
clear that some great change must have intervened in the state of the
currency between these two different periods, of which Dr. Smith's
hypothesis offers no explanation. "

It appears to me, that the difficulty may be very simply solved, by
referring this different state of the value of the guinea at the two
periods mentioned, to the different _quantities_ of debased silver
currency in circulation. In King William's reign gold was not a legal
tender, it passed only at a conventional value. All the large payments
were probably made in silver, particularly as paper currency, and the
operations of banking, were then little understood. The quantity of this
debased silver money exceeded the quantity of silver money, which would
have been maintained in circulation, if nothing but undebased money had
been in use; and consequently it was depreciated as well as debased. But
in the succeeding period when gold was a legal tender, when bank-notes
also were used in effecting payments, the quantity of debased silver
money did not exceed the quantity of silver coin fresh from the mint,
which would have circulated if there had been no debased silver money;
hence though the money was debased, it was not depreciated. Mr.
Buchanan's explanation is somewhat different, he thinks that a
subsidiary currency is not liable to depreciation, but that the main
currency is. In King William's reign silver was the main currency, and
hence was liable to depreciation. In 1774 it was a subsidiary currency,
and therefore maintained its value. Depreciation, however, does not
depend on a currency being the subsidiary or the main currency, it
depends wholly on its being in excess of quantity.

To a moderate seignorage on the coinage of money there cannot be much
objection, particularly on that currency which is to effect the smaller
payments. Money is generally enhanced in value to the full amount of the
seignorage, and therefore it is a tax which in no way affects those who
pay it, while the quantity of money is not in excess. It must, however,
be remarked, that in a country where a paper currency is established,
although the issuers of such paper should be liable to pay it in specie
on the demand of the holder, still, both their notes and the coin might
be depreciated to the full amount of the seignorage on that coin, which
is alone the legal tender, before the check, which limits the
circulation of paper, would operate. If the seignorage on gold coin were
5 per cent. , for instance, the currency, by an abundant issue of
bank-notes, might be really depreciated 5 per cent. before it would be
the interest of the holders to demand coin for the purpose of melting it
into bullion; a depreciation to which we should never be exposed, if
either there was no seignorage on the gold coin; or, if a seignorage
were allowed, the holders of bank-notes might demand bullion, and not
coin, in exchange for them, at the mint price of 3_l. _ 17_s. _ 10-1/2_d. _
Unless then the bank should be obliged to pay their notes in bullion or
coin, at the will of the holder, the late law which allows a seignorage
of 6 per cent. , or four pence per oz. , on the silver coin, but which
directs that gold shall be coined by the mint without any charge
whatever, is perhaps the most proper, as it will more effectually
prevent any unnecessary variation of the currency. [48]




CHAPTER XXVI.

ON THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF GOLD, CORN, AND LABOUR, IN RICH AND IN POOR
COUNTRIES.


"Gold and silver, like all other commodities," says Adam Smith,
"naturally seek the market where the best price is given for them; and
the best price is commonly given for every thing in the country which
can best afford it. Labour, it must be remembered, is the ultimate price
which is paid for every thing; and in countries where labour is equally
well rewarded, the money price of labour will be in proportion to that
of the subsistence of the labourer. But gold and silver will naturally
exchange for a greater quantity of subsistence in a rich than in a poor
country; in a country which abounds with subsistence, than in one which
is but indifferently supplied with it. "

But corn is a commodity, as well as gold, silver, and other things; if
all commodities, therefore, have a high exchangeable value in a rich
country, corn must not be excepted; and hence we might correctly say,
that corn exchanged for a great deal of money, because it was dear, and
that money too exchanged for a great deal of corn, because that also was
dear; which is to assert that corn is dear and cheap at the same time.
No point in political economy can be better established, than that a
rich country is prevented from increasing in population, in the same
ratio as a poor country, by the progressive difficulty of providing
food. That difficulty must necessarily raise the relative price of food,
and give encouragement to its importation. How then can money, or gold
and silver, exchange for more corn in rich, than in poor countries? It
is only in rich countries, where corn is dear, that landholders induce
the legislature to prohibit the importation of corn. Who ever heard of a
law to prevent the importation of raw produce in America or
Poland? --Nature has effectually precluded its importation by the
comparative facility of its production in those countries.

How then can it be true, that "if you except corn, and such other
vegetables, as are raised altogether by human industry, all other sorts
of rude produce--cattle, poultry, game of all kinds, the useful fossils
and minerals of the earth, &c. , naturally grow dearer as the society
advances. " Why should corn and vegetables alone be excepted? Dr. Smith's
error throughout his whole work, lies in supposing that the value of
corn is constant; that though the value of all other things may, the
value of corn never can be raised. Corn, according to him, is always of
the same value, because it will always feed the same number of people.
In the same manner it might be said, that cloth is always of the same
value, because it will always make the same number of coats. What can
value have to do with the power of feeding and clothing?

Corn, like every other commodity, has in every country its natural
price, viz. that price which is necessary to its production, and without
which it could not be cultivated: it is this price which governs its
market price, and which determines the expediency of exporting it to
foreign countries. If the importation of corn were prohibited in
England, its natural price might rise to 6_l. _ per quarter in England,
whilst it was only at half that price in France. If at this time, the
prohibition of importation were removed, corn would fall in the English
market, not to a price between 6_l. _ and 3_l. _, but ultimately and
permanently to the natural price of France, the price at which it could
be furnished to the English market, and afford the usual and ordinary
profits of stock in France; and it would remain at this price, whether
England consumed a hundred thousand, or a million of quarters. If the
demand of England were for the latter quantity, it is probable that,
owing to the necessity under which France would be, of having recourse
to land of a worse quality, to furnish this large supply, the natural
price would rise in France; and this would of course affect also the
price of corn in England. All that I contend for is, that it is the
natural price of commodities in the exporting country, which ultimately
regulates the prices at which they shall be sold, if they are not the
objects of monopoly, in the importing country.

But Dr. Smith, who has so ably supported the doctrine of the natural
price of commodities ultimately regulating their market price, has
supposed a case in which he thinks that the market price would not be
regulated either by the natural price of the exporting or of the
importing country. "Diminish the real opulence either of Holland, or the
territory of Genoa," he says, "while the number of their inhabitants
remains the same; diminish their power of supplying themselves from
distant countries, and the price of corn, instead of sinking with that
diminution in the quantity of their silver which must necessarily
accompany this declension, either as its cause or as its effect, will
rise to the price of a famine. "

To me it appears, that the very reverse would take place: the diminished
power of the Dutch or Genoese to purchase generally, might depress the
price of corn for a time below its natural price in the country from
which it was exported, as well as in the countries in which it was
imported, but it is quite impossible that it could ever raise it above
that price. It is only by increasing the opulence of the Dutch or
Genoese, that you could increase the demand, and raise the price of corn
above its former price; and that would take place only for a very
limited time, unless new difficulties should arise in obtaining the
supply.

Dr. Smith further observes on this subject: "When we are in want of
necessaries, we must part with all superfluities, of which the value, as
it rises in times of opulence and prosperity, so it sinks in times of
poverty and distress. " This is undoubtedly true; but he continues, "it
is otherwise with necessaries. Their real price, the quantity of labour
which they can purchase or command, rises in times of poverty and
distress, and sinks in times of opulence and prosperity, which are
always times of great abundance, for they could not otherwise be times
of opulence and prosperity. Corn is a necessary, silver is only a
superfluity. "

Two propositions are here advanced, which have no connexion with each
other; one, that under the circumstances supposed, corn would command
more labour, which is not disputed; the other, that corn would sell at
a higher money price, that it would exchange for more silver; this I
contend to be erroneous. It might be true, if corn were at the same time
scarce, if the usual supply had not been furnished. But in this case it
is abundant, it is not pretended that a less quantity than usual is
imported, or that more is required. To purchase corn, the Dutch or
Genoese want money, and to obtain this money, they are obliged to sell
their superfluities. It is the market value and price of these
superfluities which falls, and money appears to rise as compared with
them. But this will not tend to increase the demand for corn, nor to
lower the value of money, the only two causes which can raise the price
of corn. Money, from a want of credit, and from other causes, may be in
great demand, and consequently dear, comparatively with corn; but on no
just principle can it be maintained, that under such circumstances money
would be cheap, and therefore, that the price of corn would rise.

When we speak of the high or low value of gold, silver, or any other
commodity in different countries, we should always mention some medium
in which we are estimating them, or no idea can be attached to the
proposition. Thus, when gold is said to be dearer in England than in
Spain, if no commodity is mentioned, what notion does the assertion
convey? If corn, olives, oil, wine, and wool, be at a cheaper price in
Spain than in England; estimated in those commodities, gold is dearer in
Spain. If again, hardware, sugar, cloth, &c. be at a lower price in
England than in Spain, then, estimated in those commodities, gold is
dearer in England. Thus gold appears dearer or cheaper in Spain, as the
fancy of the observer may fix on the medium by which he estimates its
value. Adam Smith, having stamped corn and labour as an universal
measure of value, would naturally estimate the comparative value of gold
by the quantity of those two objects for which it would exchange: and,
accordingly, when he speaks of the comparative value of gold in two
countries, I understand him to mean its value estimated in corn and
labour.

But we have seen, that, estimated in corn, gold may be of very different
value in two countries. I have endeavoured to shew that it will be low
in rich countries, and high in poor countries; Adam Smith is of a
different opinion: he thinks that the value of gold estimated in corn is
highest in rich countries. But without further examining which of these
opinions is correct, either of them is sufficient to shew, that gold
will not necessarily be lower in those countries which are in possession
of the mines, though this is a proposition maintained by Adam Smith.
Suppose England to be possessed of the mines, and Adam Smith's opinion,
that gold is of the greatest value in rich countries, to be correct:
although gold would naturally flow from England to all other countries
in exchange for their _goods_, it would not follow that gold was
necessarily lower in England, as compared with corn and labour, than in
those countries. In another place, however, Adam Smith speaks of the
precious metals being necessarily lower in Spain and Portugal, than in
other parts of Europe, because those countries happen to be almost the
exclusive possessors of the mines which produce them. "Poland, where the
feudal system still continues to take place at this day as beggarly a
country as it was before the discovery of America. _The money price of
corn, however, has risen_; THE REAL VALUE OF THE PRECIOUS METALS HAS
FALLEN in Poland, in the same manner as in other parts of Europe. Their
quantity, therefore, must have increased there as in other places, _and
nearly in the same proportion to the annual produce of the land and
labour_. This increase of the quantity of those metals, however, has
not, it seems, increased that annual produce, has neither improved the
manufactures and agriculture of the country, nor mended the
circumstances of its inhabitants. Spain and Portugal, the countries
which possess the mines, are, after Poland, perhaps, the two most
beggarly countries in Europe. The value of the precious metals, however,
_must be lower in Spain and Portugal_ than in any other parts of Europe,
loaded, not only with a freight and insurance, but with the expense of
smuggling, their exportation being either prohibited, or subjected to a
duty. _In proportion to the annual produce of the land and labour,
therefore, their quantity must be greater in_ those countries than in
any other part of Europe: those countries, however, are poorer than the
greater part of Europe. Though the feudal system has been abolished in
Spain and Portugal, it has not been succeeded by a much better. "

Dr. Smith's argument appears to me to be this:--Gold, when estimated in
corn, is cheaper in Spain than in other countries, and the proof of this
is, not that corn is given by other countries to Spain for gold, but
that cloth, sugar, hardware, are by those countries given in exchange
for that metal.




CHAPTER XXVII.

TAXES PAID BY THE PRODUCER.


M. Say greatly magnifies the inconveniences which result if a tax on a
manufactured commodity is levied at an early, rather than at a late
period of its manufacture. The manufacturers, he observes, through whose
hands the commodity may successively pass, must employ greater funds in
consequence of having to advance the tax, which is often attended with
considerable difficulty to a manufacturer of very limited capital and
credit. To this observation no objection can be made.

Another inconvenience on which he dwells is, that in consequence of the
advance of the tax, the profits on the advance also must be charged to
the consumer, and that this additional tax is one from which the
treasury derives no advantage.

In this latter objection I cannot agree with M. Say. The state, we will
suppose, wants to raise _immediately_ 1000_l. _ and levies it on a
manufacturer, who will not, for a twelve-month, be able to charge it to
the consumer on his finished commodity. In consequence of such delay, he
is obliged to charge for his commodity an additional price, not only of
1000_l. _ the amount of the tax, but probably of 1100_l. _, 100_l. _ being
for interest on the 1000_l. _ advanced. But in return for this additional
100_l. _ paid by the consumer, he has a real benefit, inasmuch as his
payment of the tax which Government required immediately, and which he
must finally pay, has been postponed for a year; an opportunity,
therefore, has been afforded to him of lending to the manufacturer, who
had occasion for it, the 1000_l. _ at 10 per cent. , or at any other rate
of interest which might be agreed upon. Eleven hundred pounds payable at
the end of one year, when money is at 10 per cent. interest, is of no
more value than 1000_l. _ to be paid immediately. If Government delayed
receiving the tax for one year till the manufacture of the commodity
was completed, it would, perhaps, be obliged to issue an Exchequer bill
bearing interest, and it would pay as much for interest as the consumer
would save in price, excepting, indeed, that portion of the price which
the manufacturer might be enabled, in consequence of the tax, to add to
his own real gains. If, for the interest of the Exchequer bill,
Government would have paid 5 per cent. , a tax of 50_l. _ is saved by not
issuing it. If the manufacturer borrowed the additional capital at 5 per
cent. , and charged the consumer 10 per cent. , he also will have gained 5
per cent. on his advance over and above his usual profits, so that the
manufacturer and Government together gain, or save, precisely the sum
which the consumer pays.

M. Simonde, in his excellent work, _De la Richesse Commerciale_,
following the same line of argument as M. Say, has calculated that a tax
of 4000 francs, paid originally by a manufacturer, whose profits were at
the moderate rate of 10 per cent. , would, if the commodity manufactured
only passed through the hands of five different persons, be raised to
the consumer to the sum of 6734 francs. This calculation proceeds on
the supposition, that he who first advanced the tax, would receive from
the next manufacturer 4400 francs, and he again from the next, 4840
francs; so that at each step 10 per cent. on its value would be added to
it. This is to suppose that the value of the tax would be accumulating
at compound interest, not at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, but at
an absolute rate of 10 per cent. , at every step of its progress. This
opinion of M. de Simonde would be correct if five years elapsed between
the first advance of the tax, and the sale of the taxed commodity to the
consumer; but if one year only elapsed, a remuneration of 400 francs,
instead of 2734, would give a profit at the rate of 10 per cent. per
annum, to all who had contributed to the advance of the tax, whether the
commodity had passed through the hands of five manufacturers or fifty.




CHAPTER XXVIII.

ON THE INFLUENCE OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY ON PRICES.


It is the cost of production which must ultimately regulate the price of
commodities, and not, as has been often said, the proportion between the
supply and demand: the proportion between supply and demand may, indeed,
for a time affect the market value of a commodity, until it is supplied
in greater or less abundance, according as the demand may have increased
or diminished; but this effect will be only of temporary duration.

Diminish the cost of production of hats, and their price will ultimately
fall to their new natural price, although the demand should be doubled,
trebled, or quadrupled. Diminish the cost of subsistence of men, by
diminishing the natural price of the food and clothing, by which life
is sustained, and wages will ultimately fall, notwithstanding that the
demand for labourers may very greatly increase.

The opinion that the price of commodities depends solely on the
proportion of supply to demand, or demand to supply, has become almost
an axiom in political economy, and has been the source of much error in
that science. It is this opinion which has made Mr. Buchanan maintain
that wages are not influenced by a rise or fall in the price of
provisions, but solely by the demand and supply of labour; and that a
tax on the wages of labour would not raise wages, because it would not
alter the proportion of the demand of labourers to the supply.

The demand for a commodity cannot be said to increase, if no additional
quantity of it be purchased or consumed; and yet under such
circumstances its money value may rise. Thus, if the value of money were
to fall, the price of every commodity would rise, for each of the
competitors would be willing to spend more money than before on its
purchase; but though its price rose 10 or 20 per cent. if no more were
bought than before, it would not, I apprehend, be admissible to say,
that the variation in the price of the commodity was caused by the
increased demand for it. Its natural price, its money cost of
production, would be really altered by the altered value of money; and
without any increase of demand, the price of the commodity would be
naturally adjusted to that new value.

"We have seen," says M. Say, "that the cost of production determines the
lowest price to which things can fall: the price below which they cannot
remain for any length of time, because production would then be either
entirely stopped or diminished. " Vol. ii. p. 26.

He afterwards says that the demand for gold having increased in a still
greater proportion than the supply, since the discovery of the mines,
"its price in goods, instead of falling in the proportion of ten to one,
fell only in the proportion of four to one;" that is to say, instead of
falling in proportion as its natural price had fallen, fell in
proportion as the supply exceeded the demand. [49] "_The value of every
commodity rises always in a direct ratio to the demand, and in an
inverse ratio to the supply. _"

The same opinion is expressed by the Earl of Lauderdale.

"With respect to the variations in value, of which every thing valuable
is susceptible, if we could for a moment suppose that any substance
possessed intrinsic and fixed value, so as to render an assumed quantity
of it constantly, under all circumstances, of an equal value, then the
degree of value of all things, ascertained by such a fixed standard,
would vary according to the proportion _betwixt the quantity of them_,
and the demand for them, and every commodity would of course be subject
to a variation in its value, from four different circumstances.

1. "It would be subject to an increase of its value, from a diminution
of its quantity.

2. "To a diminution of its value, from an augmentation of its quantity.

3. "It might suffer an augmentation in its value, from the circumstance
of an increased demand.

4. "Its value might be diminished by a failure of demand.

"As it will, however, clearly appear that no commodity can possess fixed
and intrinsic value, so as to qualify it for a measure of the value of
other commodities, mankind are induced to select, as a practical measure
of value, that which appears the least liable to any of these four
sources of variations, _which are the sole causes of alteration of
value_.

"When in common language, therefore, we express the _value_ of any
commodity, it may vary at one period from what it is at another, in
consequence of eight different contingencies.

1. "From the four circumstances above stated, in relation to the
commodity of which we mean to express the value.

2. "From the same four circumstances, in relation to the commodity we
have adopted as a measure of value. "[50]

This is true of monopolized commodities, and indeed of the market price
of all other commodities for a limited period. If the demand for hats
should be doubled, the price would immediately rise, but that rise would
be only temporary, unless the cost of production of hats, or their
natural price, were raised. If the natural price of bread should fall 50
per cent. from some great discovery in the science of agriculture, the
demand would not greatly increase, for no man would desire more than
would satisfy his wants, and as the demand would not increase, neither
would the supply; for a commodity is not supplied merely because it can
be produced, but because there is a demand for it.
Here then we have a
case where the supply and demand have scarcely varied, or if they have
increased they have increased in the same proportion; and yet the price
of bread will have fallen 50 per cent. at a time too when the value of
money had continued invariable.

Commodities which are monopolized, either by an individual, or by a
company, vary according to the law which Lord Lauderdale has laid down:
they fall in proportion as the sellers augment their quantity, and rise
in proportion to the eagerness of the buyers to purchase them; their
price has no necessary connexion with their natural value: but the
prices of commodities, which are subject to competition, and whose
quantity may be increased in any moderate degree, will ultimately
depend, not on the state of demand and supply, but on the increased or
diminished cost of their production.




CHAPTER XXIX.

MR. MALTHUS'S OPINIONS ON RENT.


Although the nature of rent has in the former pages of this work been
treated on at some length; yet I consider myself bound to notice some
opinions on the subject, which appear to me erroneous, and which are the
more important, as they are found in the writings of one to whom, of all
men of the present day, some branches of economical science are the most
indebted. Of Mr. Malthus's Essay on Population, I am happy in the
opportunity here afforded me of expressing my admiration. The assaults
of the opponents of this great work have only served to prove its
strength; and I am persuaded that its just reputation will spread with
the cultivation of that science of which it is so eminent an ornament.
Mr. Malthus too--has satisfactorily explained the principles of rent,
and shewed that it rises or falls in proportion to the relative
advantages, either of fertility or situation, of the different lands in
cultivation, and has thereby thrown much light on many difficult points
connected with the subject of rent, which were before either unknown, or
very imperfectly understood; yet he appears to me to have fallen into
some errors, which his authority makes it the more necessary, whilst his
characteristic candour renders it less unpleasing to notice. One of
these errors lies in supposing rent to be a clear gain and a new
creation of riches.

I do not assent to all the opinions of Mr. Buchanan concerning rent; but
with those expressed in the following passage, quoted from his work by
Mr. Malthus, I fully agree; and therefore I must dissent from Mr.
Malthus's comment on them.

"In this view it (rent) can form no general addition to the stock of the
community, as the neat surplus in question is nothing more than a
revenue transferred from one class to another; and from the mere
circumstance of its thus changing hands, it is clear that no fund can
arise, out of which to pay taxes. The revenue which pays for the produce
of the land, exists already in the hands of those who purchase that
produce; and, if the price of subsistence were lower, it would still
remain in their hands, where it would be just as available for taxation
as when, by a higher price, it is transferred to the landed proprietor. "

After various observations on the difference between raw produce and
manufactured commodities, Mr. Malthus asks, "Is it possible then, with
M. de Sismondi, to regard rent as the sole produce of labour, which has
a value purely nominal, and the mere result of that augmentation of
price which a seller obtains in consequence of a peculiar privilege; or,
with Mr. Buchanan, to consider it as no addition to the national wealth,
but merely transfer of value, advantageous only to the landlords, and
proportionably _injurious_ to the consumers? "[51]

I have already expressed my opinion on this subject in treating of rent,
and have now only further to add, that rent is a creation of value, as I
understand that word, but not a creation of wealth. If the price of
corn, from the difficulty of producing any portion of it, should rise
from 4_l. _ to 5_l. _ per quarter, a million of quarters will be of the
value of 5,000,000_l. _ instead of 4,000,000_l. _, and as this corn will
exchange not only for more money but for more of every other commodity,
the possessors will have a greater amount of value; and as no one else
will in consequence have a less, the society altogether will be
possessed of greater value, and in that sense rent is a creation of
value. But this value is so far nominal that it adds nothing to the
wealth, that is to say, to the necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments
of the society. We should have precisely the same quantity, and no more
of commodities, and the same million quarters of corn as before; but the
effect of its being rated at 5_l. _ per quarter, instead of 4_l. _, would
be to transfer a portion of the value of the corn and commodities from
their former possessors to the landlords. Rent then is a creation of
value, but not a creation of wealth; it adds nothing to the resources
of a country, it does not enable it to maintain fleets and armies; for
the country would have a greater disposable fund if its land were of a
better quality, and it could employ the same capital without generating
a rent.

In another part of Mr. Malthus's "inquiry" he observes, "that the
immediate cause of rent is obviously the excess of price above the cost
of production at which raw produce sells in the market," and in another
place he says, "that the causes of the high price of raw produce may be
stated to be three:--

"First, and mainly, that quality of the earth, by which it can be made
to yield a greater portion of the necessaries of life than is required
for the maintenance of the persons employed on the land.

"2dly. That quality peculiar to the necessaries of life of being able to
create their own demand, or to raise up a number of demanders in
proportion to the quantity of necessaries produced.

"And 3dly. The comparative scarcity of the most fertile land. " In
speaking of the high price of corn, Mr. Malthus evidently does not mean
the price per quarter or per bushel, but rather the excess of price for
which the whole produce will sell, above the cost of its production,
including always in the term "cost of production," profits as well as
wages. One hundred and fifty quarters of corn at 3_l. _ 10_s. _ per
quarter, would yield a larger rent to the landlord than 100 quarters at
4_l. _, provided the cost of production were in both cases the same.

High price, if the expression be used in this sense, cannot then be
called a _cause_ of rent; it cannot be said "that the immediate cause of
rent is obviously the excess of price above the cost of production, at
which raw produce sells in the market," for that excess is itself rent.
Rent, Mr. Malthus has defined to be "that portion of the value of the
whole produce which remains to the owner of the land, after all the
outgoings belonging to its cultivation, of whatever kind, have been
paid, including the profits of the capital employed, estimated according
to the usual and ordinary rate of the profits of agricultural stock at
the time being. " Now whatever sum this excess may sell for, is money
rent; it is what Mr. Malthus means by "the excess of price above the
cost of production at which raw produce sells in the markets;" and
therefore in an inquiry into the causes which may elevate the price of
raw produce, compared with the cost of production, we are inquiring into
the causes which may elevate rent.

In reference to the first cause of the rise of rent, Mr. Malthus has the
following observations: "We still want to know why the consumption and
supply are such as to make the price so greatly exceed the cost of
production, and the main cause is evidently the _fertility_ of the earth
in producing the necessaries of life. Diminish this plenty, diminish the
fertility of the soil, and the excess will diminish; diminish it still
further, and it will disappear. " True, the excess of necessaries will
diminish and disappear, but that is not the question. The question is,
whether the excess of their price above the cost of their production
will diminish and disappear, for it is on this, that money rent depends.
Is Mr. Malthus warranted in his inference, that because the excess of
quantity will diminish and disappear, therefore "the cause of the _high
price_ of the necessaries of life above the cost of production is to be
found in their abundance, rather than in their scarcity; and is not only
essentially different from the high price occasioned by artificial
monopolies, but from the high price of those peculiar products of the
earth, not connected with food, which may be called natural and
necessary monopolies? "

Are there no circumstances under which the fertility of the land, and
the plenty of its produce may be diminished, without occasioning a
diminished excess of its price above the cost of production, that is to
say, a diminished rent? If there are, Mr. Malthus's proposition is much
too universal; for he appears to me to state it as a general principle,
true under all circumstances, that rent will rise with the increased
fertility of the land, and will fall with its diminished fertility.

Mr. Malthus would undoubtedly be right, if, in proportion as the land
yielded abundantly, a greater share of the whole produce were paid to
the landlord; but the contrary is the fact: when no other but the most
fertile land is in cultivation, the landlord has the smallest share of
the whole produce, as well as the smallest value, and it is only when
inferior lands are required to feed an augmenting population, that both
the landlord's share of the whole produce, and the value he receives,
progressively increase.

Suppose that the demand is for a million of quarters of corn, and that
they are the produce of the land actually in cultivation. Now, suppose
the fertility of all the land to be so diminished, that the very same
lands will yield only 900,000 quarters. The demand being for a million
of quarters, the price of corn would rise, and recourse must necessarily
be had to land of an inferior quality sooner than if the superior land
had continued to produce a million of quarters. But it is this necessity
of taking inferior land into cultivation which is the cause of the rise
of rent. Rent, it must be remembered, is not in proportion to the
absolute fertility of the land in cultivation, but in proportion to its
relative fertility. Whatever cause may drive capital to inferior land,
must elevate rent; the cause of rent being, as stated by Mr. Malthus in
his third proposition, "the comparative scarcity of the most fertile
land. " The price of corn will naturally rise with the difficulty of
producing the last portions of it; but as the cost of production will
not increase, as wages and profits taken together will continue always
of the same value,[52] it is evident that the excess of price above the
cost of production, or, in other words, rent, must rise with the
diminished fertility of the land, unless it is counteracted by a great
reduction of capital, population, and demand. It does not appear then
that Mr. Malthus's proposition is correct: rent does not immediately and
necessarily rise or fall with the increased or diminished fertility of
the land; but its increased fertility renders it capable of paying at
some future time an augmented rent. Land possessed of very little
fertility can never bear any rent; land of moderate fertility may be
made, as population increases, to bear a moderate rent; and land of
great fertility a high rent; but it is one thing to be able to bear a
high rent, and another thing actually to pay it. Rent may be lower in a
country where lands are exceedingly fertile than in a country where they
yield a moderate return, it being in proportion rather to relative than
absolute fertility--to the value of the produce, and not to its
abundance. Mr. Malthus says, that the "cause of the excess of price of
the necessaries of life above the cost of production, is to be found in
their abundance rather than their scarcity, and is essentially different
from the high price of those peculiar products of the earth, not
connected with food, which may be called natural and necessary
monopolies. "

In what are they essentially different? Would not the abundance of those
peculiar products of the earth cause a rise of rent, if the demand for
them at the same time increased? and can rent ever rise, whatever the
commodity produced may be, from abundance merely, and without an
increase of demand?

The second cause of rent mentioned by Mr. Malthus, namely, "that quality
peculiar to the necessaries of life, of being able to create their own
demand, or to raise up a number of demanders in proportion to the
quantity of necessaries produced," does not appear to me to be any way
essential to it. It is not the abundance of necessaries which raises up
demanders, but the abundance of demanders which raises up necessaries.

We are under no necessity of producing permanently any greater quantity
of a commodity than that which is demanded. If by accident any greater
quantity were produced, it would fall below its natural price, and
therefore would not pay the cost of production, together with the usual
and ordinary profits of stock: thus the supply would be checked till it
conformed to the demand, and the market price rose to the natural price.

Mr. Malthus appears to me to be too much inclined to think that
population is only increased by the previous provision of food,--"that
it is food that creates its own demand,"--that it is by first providing
food that encouragement is given to marriage, instead of considering
that the general progress of population is affected by the increase of
capital, the consequent demand for labour, and the rise of wages; and
that the production of food is but the effect of that demand.

It is by giving the workman more money, or any other commodity in which
wages are paid, and which has not fallen in value, that his situation is
improved. The increase of population, and the increase of food will
generally be the effect, but not the necessary effect of high wages. The
amended condition of the labourer, in consequence of the increased value
which is paid him, does not necessarily oblige him to marry and take
upon himself the charge of a family--he may, if it please him, exchange
his increased wages for any commodities that may contribute to his
enjoyments--for chairs, tables, and hardware; or for better clothes,
sugar, and tobacco. His increased wages then will be attended with no
other effect than an increased demand for some of those commodities; and
as the race of labourers will not be materially increased, his wages
will continue permanently high. But although this might be the
consequence of high wages, yet so great are the delights of domestic
society, that in practice it is invariably found that an increase of
population follows the amended condition of the labourer; and it is only
because it does so, that a new and increased demand arises for food.
This demand then is the effect of an increase of population, but not the
cause--it is only because the expenditure of the people takes this
direction, that the market price of necessaries exceeds the natural
price, and that the quantity of food required is produced; and it is
because the number of people is increased, that wages again fall.

What motive can a farmer have to produce more corn than is actually
demanded, when the consequence would be a depression of its market price
below its natural price, and consequently a privation to him of a
portion of his profits, by reducing them below the general rate? "If,"
says Mr. Malthus, "the necessaries of life, the most important products
of land, had not the property of creating an increase of demand
proportioned to their increased quantity, such increased quantity would
occasion a fall in their exchangeable value. [53] However abundant might
be the produce of a country, its population might remain stationary. And
this abundance without a proportionate demand, and with a very high corn
price of labour, which would naturally take place under these
circumstances, might reduce the price of raw produce, like the price of
manufactures, to the cost of production. "

"Might reduce the price of raw produce to the cost of production? " Is it
ever for any length of time either above or below this price? Does not
Mr. Malthus himself, state it never to be so? "I hope," he says, "to be
excused for dwelling a little, and presenting to the reader in various
forms the doctrine, that corn, in reference to the quantity _actually
produced_, is sold at its necessary price like manufactures, because I
consider it as a truth of the highest importance, which has been
overlooked by the economists, by Adam Smith, and all those writers, who
have represented raw produce as selling always at a monopoly price. "

"Every extensive country may thus be considered as possessing a
gradation of machines for the production of corn and raw materials,
including in this gradation not only all the various qualities of poor
land, of which every territory has generally an abundance, but the
inferior machinery which may be said to be employed when good land is
further and further forced for additional produce. As the price of raw
produce continues to rise, these inferior machines are successively
called into action; and as the price of raw produce continues to fall,
they are successively thrown out of action. The illustration here used
serves to shew at once the _necessity of the actual price of corn to the
actual produce_, and the different effect which would attend a great
reduction in the price of any particular manufacture, and a great
reduction in the price of raw produce. "[54]

How are these passages to be reconciled to that which affirms, that if
the necessaries of life had not the property of creating an increase of
demand proportioned to their increased quantity, the abundant quantity
produced would then, and then only, reduce the price of raw produce to
the cost of production? If corn is never under its natural price, it is
never more abundant than the actual population require it to be for
their own consumption; no store can be laid up for the consumption of
others; it can never then by its cheapness and abundance be a stimulus
to population. In proportion as corn can be produced cheaply, the
increased wages of the labourers will have more power to maintain
families. In America, population increases rapidly, because food can be
produced at a cheap price, and not because an abundant supply has been
previously provided. In Europe population increases comparatively
slowly, because food cannot be produced at a cheap value. In the usual
and ordinary course of things, the demand for all commodities precedes
their supply. By saying, that corn would, like manufactures, sink to its
price of production, if it could not raise up demanders, Mr. Malthus
cannot mean that all rent would be absorbed; for he has himself justly
remarked, that if all rent were given up by the landlords, corn would
not fall in price; rent being the effect, and not the cause of high
price, and there being always one quality of land in cultivation which
pays no rent whatever, the corn from which replaces by its price, only
wages and profits.

In the following passage, Mr. Malthus has given an able exposition of
the causes of the rise in the price of raw produce in rich and
progressive countries, in every word of which I concur; but it appears
to me to be at variance with some of the propositions maintained by him
in some parts of his Essay on Rent. "I have no hesitation in stating,
that, independently of the irregularities in the currency of a country,
and other temporary and accidental circumstances, the cause of the high
comparative money price of corn is its high comparative _real price_, or
the greater quantity of capital and labour which must be employed to
produce it; and that the reasons why the real price of corn is higher,
and continually rising in countries which are already rich, and still
advancing in prosperity and population, is to be found in the necessity
of resorting constantly to poorer land, to machines which require a
greater expenditure to work them, and which consequently occasion each
fresh addition to the raw produce of the country to be purchased at a
greater cost; in short, it is to be found in the important truth, that
corn in a progressive country, is sold at the price necessary to yield
the actual supply; and that, as this supply becomes more and more
difficult, the price rises in proportion. "

The real price of a commodity is here properly stated to depend on the
greater or less quantity of labour and capital (that is, accumulated
labour) which must be employed to produce it. Real price does not, as
some have contended, depend on money value; nor, as others have said, on
value relatively to corn, labour, or any other commodity taken singly,
or to all commodities collectively; but, as Mr. Malthus justly says, "on
the greater (or less) quantity of capital and labour which must be
employed to produce it. "

Among the causes of the rise of rent, Mr. Malthus mentions, "such an
increase of population as will lower the wages of labour. " But if, as
the wages of labour fall, the profits of stock rise, and they be
together always of the same value,[55] no fall of wages can raise rent,
for it will neither diminish the portion, nor the value of the portion
of the produce which will be allotted to the farmer and labourer
together, and therefore will not leave a larger portion, nor a larger
value for the landlord. In proportion as less is appropriated for wages,
more will be appropriated for profits, and _vice versa_. This division
will be settled by the farmer and his labourers, without any
interference of the landlord; and indeed it is a matter in which he can
have no interest, otherwise than as one division may be more favourable
than another, to new accumulations, and to a further demand for land. If
wages fall, profits, and not rent, would rise. If wages rose, profits,
and not rent, would fall. The rise of rent and wages, and the fall of
profits, are generally the inevitable effects of the same cause--the
increasing demand for food, the increased quantity of labour required to
produce it, and its consequently high price. If the landlord were to
forego his whole rent, the labourers would not be in the least
benefited. If the labourers were to give up their whole wages, the
landlords would derive no advantage from such a circumstance; but in
both cases the farmer would receive and retain all which they
relinquished. It has been my endeavour to shew in this work, that a
fall of wages would have no other effect than to raise profits.

Another cause of the rise of rent, according to Mr. Malthus, is "such
agricultural improvements, or such increase of exertions, as will
diminish the number of labourers necessary to produce a given effect. "
This would not raise the value of the whole produce, and would therefore
not increase rent. It would rather have a contrary tendency, it would
lower rent; for if in consequence of these improvements, the actual
quantity of food required could be furnished either with fewer hands, or
with a less quantity of land, the price of raw produce would fall, and
capital would be withdrawn from the land. [56] Nothing can raise rent,
but a demand for new land of an inferior quality, or some cause which
shall occasion an alteration in the relative fertility of the land
already under cultivation. [57] Improvements in agriculture, and in the
division of labour, are common to all land; they increase the absolute
quantity of raw produce obtained from each, but probably do not much
disturb the relative proportions which before existed between them.

Mr. Malthus has justly commented on an error of Adam Smith, and says,
"the substance of his (Dr. Smith's) argument is, that corn is of so
peculiar a nature, that its real price cannot be raised by an increase
of its money price; and that, as it is clearly an increase of real price
alone, which can encourage its production, the rise of money price,
occasioned by a bounty, can have no such effect. "

He continues: "It is by no means intended to deny the powerful influence
of the price of corn upon the price of labour, on an average of a
considerable number of years; but that this influence is not such as to
prevent the movement of capital to, or from the land, which is the
precise point in question, will be made sufficiently evident by a short
inquiry into the manner in which labour is paid, and brought into the
market, and by a consideration of the consequences to which the
assumption of Adam Smith's proposition would inevitably lead. "[58]

Mr. Malthus then proceeds to shew, that demand and high price will as
effectually encourage the production of raw produce, as the demand and
high price of any other commodity will encourage its production. In this
view it will be seen, from what I have said of the effects of bounties,
that I entirely concur. I have noticed the passage Mr. Malthus's
"Observations on the Corn Laws," for the purpose of shewing in what a
different sense the term real price is used here, and in his other
pamphlet, entitled "Grounds of an Opinion, &c. " In this passage Mr.
Malthus tells us, that "it is clearly an increase of real price alone
which can encourage the production of corn," and by real price he
evidently means the increase in its value relatively to all other
things, or in other words, the rise in its market above its natural
price, or the cost of its production. If by real price this is what is
meant, Mr. Malthus's opinion is undoubtedly correct; it is the rise in
the market price of corn which alone encourages its production, for it
may be laid down as a principle uniformly true, that the only
encouragement to the increased production of a commodity, is its market
value exceeding its natural or necessary value.

But this is not the meaning which Mr. Malthus, on other occasions,
attaches to the term, real price. In the Essay on Rent, Mr. Malthus
says, by "the real growing price of corn, I mean the real _quantity_ of
labour and capital, _which has been employed_ to produce the last
additions which have been made to the national produce. " In another part
he states "the cause of the high comparative real price of corn to be
the greater _quantity_ of capital and labour, which must be _employed_
to produce it. "[59] Suppose that in the foregoing passage we were to
substitute this definition of real price, would it not then run
thus? --"It is clearly the increase in the quantity of labour and capital
which must be employed to produce corn, which alone can encourage its
production. " This would be to say, that it is clearly the rise in the
natural or necessary price of corn, which encourages its production--a
proposition which could not be maintained. It is not the price at which
corn can be produced, that has any influence on the quantity produced,
but the price at which it can be sold. It is in proportion to the degree
of the excess of its price above the cost of production, that capital is
attracted to or repelled from the land. If that excess be such as to
give to capital so employed, a greater than the general profit of stock,
capital will go to the land; if less, it will be withdrawn from it.

It is not then by an alteration in the real price of corn that its
production is encouraged, but by an alteration in its market price. It
is not "because a greater quantity of capital and labour must be
employed to produce it," Mr. Malthus's just definition of real price,
that more capital and labour are attracted to the land, but because the
market price rises above this its real price, and, notwithstanding the
increased charge, makes the cultivation of land the more profitable
employment of capital.

Nothing can be more just than the following observations of Mr. Malthus,
on Adam Smith's standard of value. "Adam Smith was evidently led into
this train of argument, from his habit of considering _labour as the
standard measure of value_, and corn as the measure of labour. But that
corn is a very inaccurate measure of labour, the history of our own
country will amply demonstrate; where labour, compared with corn, will
be found to have experienced very great and striking variations, not
only from year to year, but from century to century; and for ten,
twenty, and thirty years together. _And that neither labour nor any
other commodity can be an accurate measure of real value in exchange_,
is now considered as one of the most incontrovertible doctrines of
political economy; and, indeed, follows from the very definition of
value in exchange. "

If neither corn nor labour are accurate measures of real value in
exchange, which they clearly are not, what other commodity
is? --certainly none. If then the expression real price of commodities,
have any meaning, it must be that which Mr. Malthus has stated, in the
Essay on Rent--it must be measured by the proportionate quantity of
capital and labour necessary to produce them.

In Mr. Malthus's "Inquiry into the Nature of Rent," he says, "that,
independently of irregularities in the currency of a country, and other
temporary and accidental circumstances, the cause of the high
comparative money price of corn, is its high comparative real price, _or
the greater quantity of capital and labour which must be employed to
produce it_. "[60]

This, I apprehend, is the correct account of all permanent variations in
price, whether of corn or of any other commodity. A commodity can only
permanently rise in price, either because a greater quantity of capital
and labour must be employed to produce it, or because money has fallen
in value; and on the contrary, it can only fall in price, either because
a less quantity of capital and labour may be employed to produce it, or
because money has risen in value.

A variation arising from the latter of either of these alternatives, an
altered value of money, is common at once to all commodities; but a
variation arising from the former cause, is confined to the particular
commodity requiring more or less labour in its production. By allowing
the free importation of corn, or by improvements in agriculture, raw
produce would fall; but the price of no other commodity would be
affected, except in proportion to the fall in the real value, or cost of
production, of the raw produce which entered into its composition.

Mr. Malthus, having acknowledged this principle, cannot, I think,
consistently maintain that the whole money value of all the commodities
in the country must sink exactly in proportion to the fall in the price
of corn. If the corn consumed in the country were of the value of ten
millions per annum, and the manufactured and foreign commodities
consumed were of the value of twenty millions, making altogether thirty
millions, it would not be admissible to infer that the annual
expenditure was reduced to 15 millions, because corn had fallen 50 per
cent. , or from 10 to 5 millions.

The value of the raw produce which entered into the composition of these
manufactures might not, for example, exceed 20 per cent. of their whole
value, and, therefore, the fall in the value of manufactured
commodities, instead of being from 20 to 10 millions, would be only from
20 to 18 millions; and after the fall in the price of corn of 50 per
cent. , the whole amount of the annual expenditure, instead of falling
from 30 to 25 millions, would fall from 30 to 23 millions. [61]

Instead of thus considering the effect of a fall in the value of raw
produce; as Mr. Malthus was bound to do by his previous admission; he
considers it as precisely the same thing with a rise of 100 per cent. in
the value of money, and, therefore, argues as if all commodities would
sink to half their former price.

"During the twenty years, beginning with 1794," he says, "and ending
with 1813, the average price of British corn per quarter was about
eighty-three shillings; during the ten years ending with 1813,
ninety-two shillings; and during the last five years of the twenty, one
hundred and eight shillings. In the course of these twenty years, the
Government borrowed near five hundred millions of real capital; for
which, on a rough average, exclusive of the sinking fund, it engaged to
pay about five per cent. But if corn should fall to fifty shillings a
quarter, and other commodities in proportion, instead of an interest of
about five per cent. , the Government would really pay an interest of
seven, eight, nine, and, for the last two hundred millions, ten per
cent.

"To this extraordinary generosity towards the stockholders, I should be
disposed to make no kind of objection, if it were not necessary to
consider by whom it is to be paid; and a moment's reflection will shew
us, that it can only be paid by the industrious classes of society, and
the landlords, that is, by all those whose nominal income will vary with
the variations in the measure of value. The nominal revenues of this
part of the society, compared with the average of the last five years,
will be diminished one half, and out of this nominally reduced income,
they will have to pay the same nominal amount of taxes. "[62]

In the first place, I think, I have already shewn, that the nominal
income of the whole country will not be diminished in the proportion
for which Mr. Malthus here contends; it would not follow, that because
corn fell fifty per cent. , each man's income would be reduced fifty per
cent. in value. [63]

In the second place, I think the reader will agree with me, that the
increased charge, if admitted, would not fall exclusively "on the
landlords and the industrious classes of society:" the stockholder, by
his expenditure, contributes his share to the support of the public
burdens in the same way as the other classes of society. If then money
became really more valuable, although he would receive a greater value,
he would also pay a greater value in taxes, and, therefore, it cannot be
true that the whole addition to the real value of the interest would be
paid by "the landlords and the industrious classes.