I have read Mr. Torrens' pamphlet[87] and think it on the whole a very
able performance. I differ with him in most of his views in chap. 2,
part 2, with many of the 3rd chap., and with a few in the remainder of
the work. I am glad to hear that you are going to make some observations
on it[88]. I think he is an adversary worthy of your pen, and the
friends of truth cannot fail to profit by the discussion. With regard to
any remarks on my opinions, you must be governed by your own discretion.
If those opinions are wrong, I should like to see them refuted, but,
thinking as I do that they are in all essential points founded on
correct principles, I ask for no mercy. I do not care how severely they
are attacked; there is nothing you could say of them which would hurt
me, if what you said did not express contempt, and that I know you do
not feel for me. Act therefore towards me as if I were a perfect
stranger, and notice me or not as you think best.
I cannot hesitate in agreeing with you that, if from a rise in the
relative value of corn less is paid for fixed capital and wages, more of
the produce must remain for the landlord and farmer together; this is
indeed self-evident, but is really not the matter in dispute between us,
and I cannot help thinking that you overlook some of the circumstances
most important connected with the question. My opinion is that corn can
only permanently rise in its exchangeable value when the real
expenses[89] of its production increase. If 5000 quarters of gross
produce cost 2500 quarters for the expenses of wages, etc., and 10,000
quarters cost double, or 5000 quarters, the exchangeable value of corn
would be the same; but, if the 10,000 quarters cost 5500 quarters for
the expenses of wages, etc., then the price would rise 10 p.c., because
such would be the amount of the increased expenses. A rise of the price
of corn and a fall in the corn price of labour is [_sic_] in my opinion
incompatible, unless it be owing to something in the currency; and it is
not necessary to enquire here what effects that would produce. Observe
that I do not question that each individual labourer may receive a less
corn price of labour, because I believe that would be the case, but I
question whether the whole corn amount of wages, etc., paid for the
cultivation of the land can be diminished with an increase of the
exchangeable value of corn. If no more labourers were employed and the
price of corn rose, your proposition could not be disputed; but the
cause of the rise of the price of corn is solely on account of the
increased expense of production.
I have lost Lord Lauderdale's pamphlet[90], or rather it has been taken
from my office. If I can get another, it sha[ll] accompany this. The
improvement[s] in agriculture I believe have had more effect in
kee[ping] down r[ents] than we have ever imagined. On my theory they
fully account for rents being no higher; on yours they would tell the
other way.
I meant to reproach you when I saw you [for[91]] speaking of Mr. Jacob's
pamphlet with so much [praise[91]] as you did when Mr. Basevi[92] asked
your opinion of it. I am glad you allow he is very deficient in
scientific knowledge.
You will see by what I have said that a rise in the price of corn is
always in my opinion accompanied by a less material surplus produce; but
it may be of equal value as compared with other things. Of this produce
the landlord gets so large a share that in spite of the rise of produce
the situation of the farmer is constantly getting worse.
Yours very truly,
DAVID RICARDO.