I have been living in a state of great uncertainty whether I should be
obliged to go to London or not. It seems to be settled that Parliament
will be prorogued, and therefore I do not think it necessary to take a
journey to town for the sole purpose of hearing the usher of the black
rods give his three taps at the door of the House of Commons with his
rod of office, and which [_sic_] we are assured by Hobhouse would be
laid about his back, if he presumed so to disturb a reformed House of
Commons. The political horizon does not appear to be clearing up. It is
always unwise for a Government to set itself against the declared
opinion of a very large class of the people, and it is more particularly
so when the point in dispute is one trifling in itself, and of no real
importance to the state. Should the public be kept in this agitated
state on a question whether the Queen should be allowed a palace, or
whether her name should be inserted in the Liturgy? Nothing can be more
unjustifiable than to risk the public safety on such questions as these,
for after raising the discussion there is no safety either in yielding
or resisting.
You say in your last letter 'that you are fortified with new arguments
to prove demonstratively that a neat revenue is absolutely impossible
under the determination to employ the whole produce in the production of
necessaries, and consequently that if there is not an adequate taste for
luxuries and conveniences or unproductive labour, there must necessarily
be a general glut.' I shall not trouble you to bring forward these
arguments, for with a very slight alteration I should entirely concur in
your proposition. If I recollect right, it is the very exception which I
made[231] and which you mention in your book. You must collect your
stock of arguments to defend more difficult points than this.
I am quite sure that you are the last man who would misstate an
adversary, knowingly, yet I find in your book some allusions to opinions
which you represent as mine and which I do not really hold. In one or
two cases you, I think, furnish the proof that you have misapprehended
me, for you represent my doctrines one way in one place, and another way
in another. After all the difference between us does not depend on these
points; they are very secondary considerations.
I have made notes on every passage in your book which I dispute, and
have supposed myself about publishing a new edition of your work, and at
liberty to mark the passage with a reference to a note at the bottom of
the page. I have in fact quoted three or four words of a sentence,
noting the page, and then added my comment. The part of your book to
which I most object is the last. I can see no soundness in the reasons
you give for the usefulness of demand on the part of unproductive
consumers. How their consuming, without reproducing, can be beneficial
to a country, in any possible state of it, I confess I cannot discover.
I have also written some notes on M. Say's letters to you, with which I
am by no means pleased. He is very unjust to me, and evidently does not
understand my doctrine; and for the opinions which we hold in common he
does not give such satisfactory reasons as might, I think, be advanced.
In fact he yields points to you, which may almost be considered as
giving up the question, and affording you a triumph. In Say's works
generally, there is a great mixture of profound thinking, and of
egregious blundering. What can induce him to persevere in representing
utility and value as the same thing? Can he really believe that our
taxation operates as he describes[232], and can he think that we should
be relieved, in the way he represents, by the payment of our national
debt[233]?
I shall not dispute another proposition in your letter. 'No wealth,' you
say, 'can exist unless the demand or the estimation in which the
commodity is held exceeds the cost of production.' I have never disputed
this. I do not dispute either the influence of demand on the price of
corn or on the price of all other things; but supply follows close at
its heels and soon takes the power of regulating price in his [_sic_]
own hands, and in regulating it he is determined by cost of production.
I acknowledge the intervals on which you so exclusively dwell, but still
they are only intervals. 'Fifty oak trees valued at L20 each do not
contain as much labour as a stone wall in Gloucestershire which costs
L1000['][234]. I have answered your question; let me ask you one. Did
you ever believe that I thought fifty oak trees would cost as much
labour as the stone wall? I really do not want such propositions to be
granted in order to support my system....
I am, Ever truly yours,
DAVID RICARDO.