Malthus' Opinions on Rent

I admire Malthus’s Essay on Population.

It has been assaulted by opponents but it has proven its strength.

Its just reputation will spread with the cultivation of that science of which it is so eminent an ornament. Mr. Malthus too—has550 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 agree with the rent of Malthus, but not with that of Buchanan.

“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 to551 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?“50

Rent is a creation of value, not a creation of wealth.

If the price of corn, from the difficulty of producing any portion of it, should rise from 4l. to 5l. per quarter, a million of quarters will be of the value of 5,000,000l. instead of 4,000,000l., 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 5l. per quarter, instead of 4l., 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 crea553tion 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.

554 “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 3l. 10s. per quarter, would yield a larger rent to the landlord than 100 quarters at 4l., 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 ordinary555 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.556 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,557 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 its558 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,51 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 559little 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 that561 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 permanent562ly 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 quan563tity would occasion a fall in their exchangeable value.52 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 564Smith, 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.“53

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 566consumption 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 has567 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;568 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,54 no fall of wages can raise rent, for it will neither diminish the portion, nor the value of the portion of the pro569duce 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 to570 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.55 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.567 Improvements 571 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, 572which 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.“57

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 573things, 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.“58 Suppose that in the fore574going 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.

575

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. And576 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.59

577This, 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 this578 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.60

579 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 580fall 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.“61

In the first place, I think, I have already shewn, that the nominal income of the whole 581country 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.62

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.”

The whole argument, however, of Mr. Malthus, is built on an infirm basis: it supposes,582 because the gross income of the country is diminished, that, therefore, the net income must also be diminished, in the same proportion. It has been one of the objects of this work to shew, that with every fall in the real value of necessaries, the wages of labour would fall, and that the profits of stock would rise—in other words, that of any given annual value a less portion would be paid to the labouring class, and a larger portion to those whose funds employed this class. Suppose the value of the commodities produced in a particular manufacture to be 1000l., and to be divided between the master and his labourers, in the proportion of 800l. to labourers, and 200l. to the master; if the value of these commodities should fall to 900l., and 100l. be saved from the wages of labour, in consequence of the fall of necessaries, the net income of the masters would be in no degree impaired, and, therefore, he could with just as much facility pay the same amount of taxes, after, as before the reduction of price.63

583

And that wages would fall as much as the mass of commodities, or rather that the net income remaining to landlords, farmers, manufacturers, traders, and stockholders, the only real payers of taxes, would be as great as before, is very highly probable; for nothing would be even nominally lost to the society by the freest importation of corn, but that portion of rent of which the landlords would be deprived in consequence of the fall of raw produce.

The difference between the value of corn and all other commodities sold in the country, before and after the importation of cheap corn, would be only equal to the fall of rent; because, independently of rent, the same quantity of labour would always produce the same value.

The whole reduction which is made in wages, is a value actually added to the value of the net income before possessed by the society; whilst the only value which is taken from that net income is the value of that part of their rent of which the landlords will be deprived by a fall of raw produce. When we584 consider that the fall of produce acts upon a limited number of landlords, while it reduces the wages not only of those who are employed in agriculture, but of all those who are occupied in manufactures and commerce, it may well be doubted, whether the net revenue of the society would suffer any abatement whatever.64

But, if it did, it must not be supposed that the ability to pay taxes will diminish in the same degree, as the money value, even of the net revenue. Suppose that my net revenue were diminished from 1000l. to 900l.; but that my taxes continued to be the same, to be 100l.: is it not probable that my ability to pay this 100l. may be greater with the smaller than with the larger revenue? Commodities cannot fall so universally as Mr. Malthus supposes, without greatly benefiting the consumers, without enabling them with a 585much smaller money revenue to command more of the conveniences, necessaries, and luxuries of human life; and the question resolves itself into this—whether those who are in possession of the net revenue of the country will be benefited as much by the diminished price of commodities, as they will suffer by the greater real taxation. On which side the balance may preponderate, will depend on the proportion which taxes bear to the annual revenue; if it be enormously large, it may undoubtedly more than counterbalance the advantages from cheap necessaries; but I trust enough has been said, to shew, that Mr. Malthus has very greatly over-rated the loss to the tax-payers, from a fall in one of the most important necessaries of life; and that if they were not entirely remunerated for the real increase of taxes, by the fall of wages and increase of profits, they would be more than compensated, by the cheaper price of all objects on which their incomes were expended.

That the stockholder is benefited by a great fall in the value of corn, cannot be doubted; but if no one else be injured, that is no reason586 why corn should be made dear: for the gains of the stockholder are national gains, and increase, as all other gains do, the real wealth and power of the country. If they are unjustly benefited, let the degree in which they are so, be accurately ascertained, and then it is for the legislature to devise a remedy; but no policy can be more unwise than to shut ourselves out from the great advantages arising from cheap corn, and abundant productions, merely because the stockholder would have an undue proportion of the increase.

To regulate the dividends on stock by the money value of corn, has never yet been attempted. If justice and good faith required such a regulation, a great debt is due to the old stockholders; for they have been receiving the same money dividends for more than a century, although corn has, perhaps, been doubled or trebled in price.65

587

Mr. Malthus says, “It is true, that the last additions to the agricultural produce of an improving country are not attended with a large proportion of rent; and it is precisely this circumstance that may make it answer to a rich country to import some of its corn, if it can be secure of obtaining an equable supply. But in all cases the importation of foreign corn must fail to answer nationally, if it is not so much cheaper than the corn that can be grown at home, as to equal both the profits and the rent of the grain which it displaces.” Grounds, &c. p. 36.

As rent is the effect of the high price of corn, the loss of rent is the effect of a low price. Foreign corn never enters into competition with such home corn as affords a rent; the fall of price invariably affects the landlord till the whole of his rent is absorbed;—if it fall still more, the price will not afford even the common profits of stock; capital will then quit the land for some other employment, and the corn, which was before grown upon it, will then, and not till then, be imported. From the loss of rent, there will be a loss of value, of estimated money value, but there will be588 a gain of wealth. The amount of the raw produce and other productions together will be increased, from the greater facility with which they are produced; they will, though augmented in quantity, be diminished in value.

Two men employ equal capitals—one in agriculture, the other in manufactures. That in agriculture produces a net annual value of 1200l. of which 1000l. is retained for profit, and 200l. is paid for rent; the other in manufactures produces only an annual value of 1000l. Suppose that by importation, the same quantity of corn can be obtained for commodities which cost 950l., and that, in consequence, the capital employed in agriculture is diverted to manufactures, where it can produce a value of 1000l. the net revenue of the country will be of less value, it will be reduced from 2200l. to 2000l., but there will not only be the same quantity of commodities and corn for its own consumption, but also as much addition to that quantity as 50l. would purchase, the difference between the value at which its manufactures were sold to the foreign country, and the value of the corn which was purchased from it.

589 Mr. Malthus says, “It has been justly observed by Adam Smith, that no equal quantity of productive labour employed in manufactures can ever occasion so great a reproduction as in agriculture.” If Adam Smith speaks of value, he is correct, but if he speaks of riches, which is the important point, he is mistaken, for he has himself defined riches to consist of the necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments of human life. One set of necessaries and conveniences admits of no comparison with another set; value in use cannot be measured by any known standard, it is differently estimated by different persons.

[1] Chap. xv. part i. “Des Débouchés,” contains in particular some very important principles, which I believe were first explained by this distinguished writer.

[2] Book i. chap. 5.

[3] “But though labour be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly estimated. It is often difficult to ascertain the proportion between two different quantities of labour. The time spent in two different sorts of work will not always alone determine this proportion. The different degrees of hardship endured, and of ingenuity exercised, must likewise be taken into account. There may be more labour in an hour’s hard work, than in two hours’ easy business; or, in an hour’s application to a trade, which it costs ten years’ labour to learn, than in a month’s industry at an ordinary and obvious employment. But it is not easy to find any accurate measure, either of hardship or ingenuity. In exchanging, indeed, the different productions of different sorts of labour for one another, some allowance is commonly made for both. It is adjusted, however, not by any accurate measure, but by the higgling and bargaining of the market, according to that sort of rough equality, which, though not exact, is sufficient for carrying on the business of common life."—Wealth of Nations. Book i. chap. 10.

[4] Wealth of Nations, book i. chap. 10.

[5] “The earth, as we have already seen, is not the only agent of nature which has a productive power; but it is the only one, or nearly so, that one set of men take to themselves, to the exclusion of others; and of which consequently they can appropriate the benefits. The waters of rivers, and of the sea, by the power which they have of giving movement to our machines, carrying our boats, nourishing our fish, have also a productive power; the wind which turns our mills, and even the heat of the sun, work for us; but happily no one has yet been able to say: the ‘wind and the sun are mine, and the service which they render must be paid for.’"—Economie Politique, par J. B. Say, vol. ii. p. 124.

[6] Has not M. Say forgotten, in the following passage, that it is the cost of production which ultimately regulates price? “The produce of labour employed on the land has this peculiar property, that it does not become more dear by becoming more scarce, because population always diminishes at the same time that food diminishes, and consequently the quantity of these products demanded, diminishes at the same time as the quantity supplied. Besides it is not observed that corn is more dear in those places where there is plenty of uncultivated land, than in completely cultivated countries. England and France were much more imperfectly cultivated in the middle ages than they are now; they produced much less raw produce: nevertheless from all that we can judge by a comparison with the value of other things, corn was not sold at a dearer price. If the produce was less, so was the population; the weakness of the demand compensated the feebleness of the supply.” vol. ii. 338. M. Say being impressed with the opinion that the price of commodities is regulated by the price of labour, and justly supposing that charitable institutions of all sorts tend to increase the population beyond what it otherwise would be, and therefore to lower wages, says, “I suspect that the cheapness of the goods, which come from England is partly caused by the numerous charitable institutions which exist in that country.” vol. ii. 277. This is a consistent opinion in one who maintains that wages regulate price.

[7] “In agriculture too,” says Adam Smith, “nature labours along with man; and though her labour costs no expense, its produce has its value, as well as that of the most expensive workman.” The labour of nature is paid, not because she does much, but because she does little. In proportion as she becomes niggardly in her gifts, she exacts a greater price for her work. Where she is munificently beneficent, she always works gratis. “The labouring cattle employed in agriculture, not only occasion, like the workmen in manufactures, the reproduction of a value equal to their own consumption, or to the capital which employs them, together with its owner’s profits, but of a much greater value. Over and above the capital of the farmer and all its profits, they regularly occasion the reproduction of the rent of the landlord. This rent may be considered as the produce of those powers of nature, the use of which the landlord lends to the farmer. It is greater or smaller according to the supposed extent of those powers, or in other words, according to the supposed natural or improved fertility of the land. It is the work of nature which remains, after deducting or compensating every thing which can be regarded as the work of man. It is seldom less than a fourth, and frequently more than a third of the whole produce. No equal quantity of productive labour employed in manufactures, can ever occasion so great a reproduction. In them nature does nothing, man does all; and the reproduction must always be in proportion to the strength of the agents that occasion it. The capital employed in agriculture, therefore, not only puts into motion a greater quantity of productive labour than any equal capital employed in manufactures, but in proportion too to the quantity of the productive labour which it employs, it adds a much greater value to the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, to the real wealth and revenue of its inhabitants. Of all the ways in which a capital can be employed, it is by far the most advantageous to the society."—Book II. chap. v. p. 15.

Does nature nothing for man in manufactures? Are the powers of wind and water, which move our machinery, and assist navigation, nothing? The pressure of the atmosphere and the elasticity of steam, which enable us to work the most stupendous engines—are they not the gifts of nature? to say nothing of the effects of the matter of heat in softening and melting metals, of the decomposition of the atmosphere in the process of dyeing and fermentation. There is not a manufacture which can be mentioned, in which nature does not give her assistance to man, and give it too, generously and gratuitously.

In remarking on the passage which I have copied from Adam Smith, Mr. Buchanan observes, “I have endeavoured to shew, in the observations on productive and unproductive labour, contained in the fourth volume, that agriculture adds no more to the national stock than any other sort of industry. In dwelling on the reproduction of rent as so great an advantage to society, Dr. Smith does not reflect that rent is the effect of high price, and that what the landlord gains in this way, he gains at the expense of the community at large. There is no absolute gain to the society by the reproduction of rent; it is only one class profiting at the expense of another class. The notion of agriculture yielding a produce, and a rent in consequence, because nature concurs with human industry in the process of cultivation, is a mere fancy. It is not from the produce, but from the price at which the produce is sold, that the rent is derived; and this price is got, not because nature assists in the production, but because it is the price which suits the consumption to the supply.”

[8] To make this obvious, and to shew the degrees in which corn and money rent will vary, let us suppose that the labour of ten men will, on land of a certain quality, obtain 180 quarters of wheat, and its value to be 4l. per quarter, or 720l.; and that the labour of ten additional men will, on the same or any other land, produce only 170 quarters in addition; wheat would rise from 4l. to 4l. 4s. 8d. for 170: 180:: 4l.: 4l. 4s. 8d.; or, as in the production of 170 quarters, the labour of 10 men is necessary in one case, and only of 9.44 in the other, the rise would be as 9.44 to 10, or as 4l. to 4l. 4s. 8d. If 10 men be further employed, and the return be

160, the price will rise to £4 10 0 150, - - - - - - 4 16 0 140, - - - - - - 5 2 10 Now if no rent was paid for the land which yielded 180 quarters when corn was at 4l. per quarter, the value of 10 quarters would be paid as rent when only 170 could be procured, which, at 4l. 4s. 8d. would be 42l. 7s. 6d.

20 qrs. when 160 were produced, which at £4 10 0 would be £4 90 0 30 qrs. . . 150 . . . . . . . . . . 4 16 0 . . . 144 0 0 40 qrs. . . 140 . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 10 . . . 205 13 4 Corn rent then would increase in the proportion of 100 and money rent in the proportion of 100 212 100 340 100 400 465 [9] With Mr. Buchanan in the following passage, if it refers to temporary states of misery, I so far agree, that “the great evil of the labourer’s condition, is poverty, arising either from a scarcity of food or of work; and in all countries, laws without number have been enacted for his relief. But there are miseries in the social state which legislation cannot relieve; and it is useful therefore to know its limits, that we may not, by aiming at what is impracticable, miss the good which is really in our power."—Buchanan, page 61.

[10] The reader is desired to bear in mind, that for the purpose of making the subject more clear, I consider money to be invariable in value, and therefore every variation of price to be referable to an alteration in the value of the commodity.

[11] The reader is aware, that we are leaving out of our consideration the accidental variations arising from bad and good seasons, or from the demand increasing or diminishing by any sudden effect on the state of population. We are speaking of the natural and constant, not of the accidental and fluctuating price of corn.

[12] The 180 quarters of corn would be divided in the followng proportions between landlords, farmers, and labourers, with the above-named variations in the value of corn.

Price per qr. Rent. Profit. Wages. Total. £. s. d. In Wheat. In Wheat. In Wheat. 4 0 0 None. 120 qrs. 60 qrs. 180 4 4 8 10 qrs 111.7 58.3 4 10 0 20 qrs 103.4 56.6 4 16 0 30 95 55 5 2 10 40 86.7 53.5 and, under the same circumstances, money rent, wages, and profit, would be as follows:

Price per qr. Rent. Profit. Wages. Total. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. 4 0 0 None. 480 0 0 240 0 0 720 0 0 4 4 8 42 7 8 473 0 0 247 0 0 762 7 6 4 10 0 90 0 0 465 0 0 255 0 0 810 0 0 4 16 0 144 0 0 456 0 0 264 0 0 864 0 0 5 2 10 205 13 4 445 15 0 274 5 0 925 13 4 [13] See Adam Smith, book i. chap. 9.

[14] It will appear then, that a country possessing very considerable advantages in machinery and skill, and which may therefore be enabled to manufacture commodities with much less labour than her neighbours, may in return for such commodities, import a portion of the corn required for its consumption, even if its land were more fertile, and corn could be grown with less labour than in the country from which it was imported. Two men can both make shoes and hats, and one is superior to the other in both employments; but in making hats, he can only exceed his competitor by one-fifth or 20 per cent., and in making shoes he can excel him by one-third or 33 per cent.;—will it not be for the interest of both, that the superior man should employ himself exclusively in making shoes, and the inferior man in making hats?

[15] Book V. ch. ii.

[16] M. Say appears to have imbibed the general opinion on this subject. Speaking of corn, he says, “thence it results, that its price influences the price of all other commodities. A farmer, a manufacturer, or a merchant, employs a certain number of workmen, who all have occasion to consume a certain quantity of corn. If the price of corn rises, he is obliged to raise, in an equal proportion, the price of his productions.” Vol. i. p. 255.

[17] M. Say says, that “the tax, added to the price of a commodity, raises its price. Every increase in the price of a commodity, necessarily reduces the number of those who are able to purchase it, or at least the quantity they will consume of it.” This is by no means a necessary consequence. I do not believe, that if bread were taxed, the consumption of bread would be diminished, more than if cloth, wine, or soap, were taxed.

[18] The following remark of the same author appears to me equally erroneous: “When a high duty is laid on cotton, the production of all those goods, of which cotton is the basis, is diminished. If the total value added to cotton in its various manufactures, in a particular country, amounted to 100 millions of francs per annum, and the effect of the tax was, to diminish the consumption one half, then the tax would deprive that country every year of 50 millions of francs, in addition to the sum received by government.” Vol. ii. p. 314.

[19] It is observed by M. Say, “that a manufacturer is not enabled to make the consumer pay the whole tax levied on his commodity, because its increased price will diminish its consumption.” Should this be the case, should the consumption be diminished, will not the supply also speedily be diminished? Why should the manufacturer continue in the trade if his profits are below the general level? M. Say appears here also to have forgotten the doctrine which he elsewhere supports, “that the cost of production determines the price, below which commodities cannot fall for any length of time, because production would then be either suspended or diminished."—Vol. ii. p. 26.

“The tax in this case falls then partly on the consumer who is obliged to give more for the commodity taxed, and partly on the producer, who, after deducting the tax, will receive less. The public treasury will be benefited by what the purchaser pays in addition, and also by the sacrifice which the producer is obliged to make of a part of his profits. It is the effort of gunpowder, which acts at the same time on the bullet which it projects, and on the gun which it causes to recoil.” Vol. ii. p. 333.

[20] “Melon says, that the debts of a nation are debts due from the right hand to the left, by which the body is not weakened. It is true that the general wealth is not diminished by the payment of the interest on arrears of the debt: The dividends are a value which passes from the hand of the contributor to the national creditor: Whether it be the national creditor or the contributor who accumulates or consumes it, is I agree of little importance to the society; but the principal of the debt—what has become of that? It exists no more. The consumption which has followed the loan has annihilated a capital which will never yield any further revenue. The society is deprived not of the amount of interest, since that passes from one hand to the other, but of the revenue from a destroyed capital. This capital, if it had been employed productively by him who lent it to the state, would equally have yielded him an income, but that income would have been derived from a real production, and would not have been furnished from the pocket of a fellow citizen."—Say, vol. ii. p. 357. This is both conceived and expressed in the true spirit of the science.

[21] “Manufacturing industry increases its produce in proportion to the demand, and the price falls; but the produce of land cannot be so increased; and a high price is still necessary to prevent the consumption from exceeding the supply.” Buchanan, vol. iv. p. 40. Is it possible that Mr. Buchanan can seriously assert, that the produce of the land cannot be increased, if the demand increases?

[22] I wish the word “Profit” had been omitted. Dr. Smith must suppose the profits of the tenants of these precious vineyards to be above the general rate of profits. If they were not, they would not pay the tax, unless they could shift it either to the landlord or consumer.

[23] See note, p. 346.

[24] Vol. iii. p. 355.

[25] In a former part of this work, I have noticed the difference between rent, properly so called, and the remuneration paid to the landlord under that name, for the advantages which the expenditure of his capital has procured to his tenant; but I did not perhaps sufficiently distinguish the difference which would arise from the different modes in which this capital might be applied. As a part of this capital, when once expended in the improvement of a farm, is inseparably amalgamated with the land, and tends to increase its productive powers, the remuneration paid to the landlord for its use is strictly of the nature of rent, and is subject to all the laws of rent. Whether the improvement be made at the expense of the landlord or the tenant, it will not be undertaken in the first instance, unless there is a strong probability that the return will at least be equal to the profit that can be made by the disposition of any other equal capital; but when once made, the return obtained will ever after be wholly of the nature of rent, and will be subject to all the variations of rent. Some of these expenses however, only give advantages to the land for a limited period, and do not add permanently to its productive powers: being bestowed on buildings, and other perishable improvements, they require to be constantly renewed, and therefore do not obtain for the landlord any permanent addition to his real rent.

[26] Adam Smith says, “that the difference between the real and the nominal price of commodities and labour, is not a matter of mere speculation, but may sometimes be of considerable use in practice.” I agree with him; but the real price of labour and commodities, is no more to be ascertained by their price in goods, Adam Smith’s real measure, than by their price in gold and silver, his nominal measure. The labourer is only paid a really high price for his labour, when his wages will purchase the produce of a great deal of labour.

[27] In vol. i. p. 108, M. Say infers, that silver is now of the same value, as in the reign of Louis XIV. “because the same quantity of silver will buy the same quantity of corn.”

[28] “The first man who knew how to soften metals by fire, is not the creator of the value which that process adds to the melted metal. That value is the result of the physical action of fire added to the industry and capital of those who availed themselves of this knowledge.”

“From this error Smith has drawn this false result, that the value of all productions represents the recent or former labour of man, or in other words, that riches are nothing else but accumulated labour; from which, by a second consequence, equally false, labour is the sole measure of riches, or of the value of productions.“29 The inferences with which M. Say concludes are his own, and not Dr. Smith’s; they are correct if no distinction be made between value and riches: but though Adam Smith, who defined riches to consist in the abundance of necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments of human life, would have allowed that machines and natural agents might very greatly add to the riches of a country, he would not have allowed that they add any thing to value in exchange.

[29] Chap. iv. p. 31.

[30] M. Say, Catechisme d’Economie Politique, p. 99.

[31] Adam Smith speaks of Holland, as affording an instance of the fall of profits from the accumulation of capital, and from every employment being consequently overcharged. “The Government there borrow at 2 per cent., and private people of good credit, at 3 per cent.” But it should be remembered, that Holland was obliged to import almost all the corn which she consumed, and by imposing heavy taxes on the necessaries of the labourer, she further raised the wages of labour. These facts will sufficiently account for the low rate of profits and interest in Holland.

[32] Is the following quite consistent with M. Say’s principle? “The more disposable capitals are abundant in proportion to the extent of employment for them, the more will the rate of interest on loans of capital fall."—Vol. ii. p. 108. If capital to any extent can be employed by a country, how can it be said to be abundant compared with the extent of employment for it?

[33] Adam Smith says, that “When the produce of any particular branch of industry exceeds what the demand of the country requires, the surplus must be sent abroad, and exchanged for something for which there is a demand at home. Without such exportation a part of the productive labour of the country must cease, and the value of its annual produce diminish. The land and labour of great Britain produce generally more corn, woollens, and hardware, than the demand of the home market requires. The surplus part of them, therefore, must be sent abroad, and exchanged for something for which there is a demand at home. It is only by means of such exportation, that this surplus can acquire a value sufficient to compensate the labour and expense of producing it.” One would be led to think by the above passage, that Adam Smith concluded we were under some necessity of producing a surplus of corn, woollen goods, and hardware, and that the capital which produced them could not be otherwise employed. It is, however, always a matter of choice in what way a capital shall be employed, and therefore there can never, for any length of time, be a surplus of any commodity; for if there were, it would fall below its natural price, and capital would be removed to some more profitable employment. No writer has more satisfactorily and ably shewn than Dr. Smith, the tendency of capital to move from employments in which the goods produced do not repay by their price the whole expenses, including the ordinary profits, of producing and bringing them to market.34]

[34] See Chap. 10. Book I.

[35] “All kinds of public loans,” observes M. Say, “are attended with the inconvenience of withdrawing capital, or portions of capital, from productive employments, to devote them to consumption; and when they take place in a country, the Government of which does not inspire much confidence, they have the further inconvenience of raising the interest of capital. Who would lend at 5 per cent. per annum to agriculture, to manufacturers, and to commerce, when a borrower may be found ready to pay an interest of 7 or 8 per cent.? That sort of income, which is called profit of stock, would rise then at the expense of the consumer. Consumption would be reduced by the rise in the price of produce; and the other productive services would be less in demand, less well paid. The whole nation, capitalists excepted, would be the sufferers from such a state of things.” To the question: “who would lend money to farmers, manufacturers, and merchants, at 5 per cent. per annum, when another borrower having little credit, would give 7 or 8?” I reply, that every prudent and reasonable man would. Because the rate of interest is 7 or 8 per cent. there where the lender runs extraordinary risk, is this any reason that it should be equally high in those places where they are secured from such risks? M. Say allows, that the rate of interest depends on the rate of profits; but it does not therefore follow, that the rate of profits depends on the rate of interest. One is the cause, the other the effect, and it is impossible for any circumstances to make them change places.

[36] In another place he says, that “whatever extension of the foreign market can be occasioned by the bounty, must, in every particular year, be altogether at the expense of the home market; as every bushel of corn which is exported by means of the bounty, and which would not have been exported without the bounty, would have remained in the home market to increase the consumption, and to lower the price of that commodity. The corn bounty, it is to be observed, as well as every other bounty upon exportation, imposes two different taxes upon the people; first, the tax which they are obliged to contribute, in order to pay the bounty; and, secondly, the tax which arises from the advanced price of the commodity in the home market, and which, as the whole body of the people are purchasers of corn, must in this particular commodity be paid by the whole body of the people. In this particular commodity, therefore, this second tax is by much the heaviest of the two.” “For every five shillings, therefore, which they contribute to the payment of the first tax, they must contribute six pounds four shillings to the payment of the second.” “The extraordinary exportation of corn, therefore, occasioned by the bounty, not only in every particular year diminishes the home, just as much as it extends the foreign market and consumption, but, by restraining the population and industry of the country, its final tendency is to stunt and restrain the gradual extension of the home market, and thereby, in the long run, rather to diminish than to augment the whole market and consumption of corn.”

[37] The same opinion is held by M. Say. Vol. ii. p. 335.

[38] See Chap. on Rent.

[39] M. Say supposes the advantage of the manufacturers at home to be more than temporary. “A Government which absolutely prohibits the importation of certain foreign goods, establishes a monopoly in favour of those who produce such commodities at home, against those who consume them; in other words, those at home who produce them having the exclusive privilege of selling them, may elevate their price above the natural price; and the consumers at home, not being able to obtain them elsewhere, are obliged to purchase them at a higher price.” Vol. i. p. 201.

But how can they permanently support the market price of their goods above the natural price, when every one of their fellow citizens is free to enter into the trade? they are guaranteed against foreign, but not against home competition. The real evil arising to the country from such monopolies, if they can be called by that name, lies, not in raising the market price of such goods, but in raising their real and natural price. By increasing the cost of production, a portion of the labour of the country is less productively employed.

[40] Are not the following passages contradictory to the one above quoted? “Besides, that home trade, though less noticed, (because it is in a variety of hands) is the most considerable, it is also the most profitable. The commodities exchanged in that trade are necessarily the productions of the same country.” Vol. i. p. 84.

“The English Government has not observed, that the most profitable sales are those which a country makes to itself, because they cannot take place, without two values being produced by the nation; the value which is sold, and the value with which the purchase is made.” Vol. i. p. 221.

I shall, in the 24th chapter, examine the soundness of this opinion.

[41] See page 198.

[42] M. Say is of the same opinion with Adam Smith: “The most productive employment of capital, for the country in general, after that on the land, is that of manufactures and of home trade; because it puts in activity an industry of which the profits are gained in the country, while those capitals which are employed in foreign commerce, make the industry and lands of all countries to be productive, without distinction.

“The employment of capital, the least favourable to a nation, is that of carrying the produce of one foreign country to another.” Say, vol. ii. p. 120.

[43] “It is fortunate that the natural course of things draws capital, not to those employments where the greatest profits are made, but to those where their operation is most profitable to the community."—Vol. ii. p. 122. M. Say has not told us what those employments are, which, while they are the most profitable to the individual, are not the most profitable to the state. If countries with limited capitals, but with abundance of fertile land, do not early engage in foreign trade, the reason is, because it is less profitable to individuals, and therefore also less profitable to the state.

[44] “The use of gold and silver then establishes in every place a certain necessity for these commodities; and when the country possesses the quantity necessary to satisfy this want, all that is further imported, not being in demand, is unfruitful in value, and of no use to its owners."—Say, vol. i. p. 187.

In page 196, M. Say says, that supposing a country to require 1000 carriages, and to be possessed of 1500—all above 1000 would be useless; and thence he infers, that if it possesses more money than is necessary, the overplus will not be employed.

[45] Whatever I say of gold coin, is equally applicable to silver coin; but it is not necessary to mention both on every occasion.

[46] “In the transactions of Government with individuals, and in those of individuals between themselves, a piece of money is never received, whatever denomination may be given to it, but at its intrinsic value, increased by the value of the utility which the impression it bears has added to it."—Say, vol. i. p. 327.

“Money is so little a mark of value, that if the pieces of money lose a part of their value by friction, from use, or by the knavery of the clippers of money, all goods rise in price in proportion to the alteration which they have experienced; and if Government orders a recoinage, and restores each piece to its legal weight and fineness, goods will fall to their former price; if they have not been exposed to variations from other causes."—Say, vol. i. p. 346.

[47] M. Say recommends that the seignorage should vary according to the quantity of business that the mint might be called upon to perform.

“Government should not coin the bullion of individuals except on payment, not only of the expenses, but also of the profits of coining. This profit might be carried to a considerable height, in consequence of the exclusive privilege of coining; but it must vary according to the circumstances of the mint, and the quantity required for circulation.” Vol. i. p. 380.

Such a regulation would be extremely pernicious, and would expose us to considerable and unnecessary variation in the bullion value of the currency.

[48] If with the quantity of gold and silver which actually exists, these metals only served for the manufacture of utensils and ornaments, they would be abundant, and would be much cheaper than they are at present; in other words, in exchanging them for any other species of goods, we should be obliged to give proportionally a greater quantity of them. But as a large quantity of these metals is used for money, and as this portion is used for no other purpose, there remains less to be employed in furniture and jewellery; now this scarcity adds to their value.—Say, vol. i. p. 316. See also note to p. 78.

[49] An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth, page 13.

[50] An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent, p. 15.

[51] See page 124, where I have endeavoured to shew, that whatever facility or difficulty there may be in the production of corn; wages and profits together will be of the same value. When wages rise, it is always at the expense of profits, and when they fall, profits always rise.

[52] Of what increased quantity does Mr. Malthus speak? Who is to produce it? Who can have any motive to produce it, before any demand exists for an additional quantity?

[53] Inquiry, &c. “In all progressive countries, the average price of corn is never higher than what is necessary to continue the average increase of produce.” Observations, p. 21.

“In the employment of fresh capital upon the land, to provide for the wants of an increasing population, whether this fresh capital is employed in bringing more land under the plough, or improving land already in cultivation, the main question always depends upon the expected returns of this capital; and no part of the gross profits can be diminished, without diminishing the motive to this mode of employing it. Every diminution of price, not fully and immediately balanced by a proportioned fall in all the necessary expenses of a farm, every tax on the land, every tax on farming stock, every tax on the necessaries of farmers, will tell in the computation; and if, after all these outgoings are allowed for, the price of the produce will not leave a fair remuneration for the capital employed, according to the general rate of profits, and a rent at least equal to the rent of the land in its former state, no sufficient motive can exist to undertake the projected improvement.” Observations, p. 22.

[54] See p. 124.

[55] See p. 70, &c.

[56] It is not necessary to state on every occasion, but it must be always understood, that the same effect will be produced by employing different, but equal portions of capital on the land already in cultivation, with different results. Rent is the difference of produce obtained with equal capitals, and with equal labour on the same, or on different qualities of land.

[57] Observations on the Corn Laws, p. 4.

[58] Upon shewing this passage to Mr. Malthus, at the time when these papers were going to the press, he observed, “that in these two instances he had inadvertently used the term real price, instead of cost of production. It will be seen from what I have already said, that to me it appears, that in these two instances he has used the term real price in its true and just acceptation, and that in the former case only it is incorrectly applied.

[59] Page 40.

[60] Manufactures, indeed, could not fall in any such proportion, because, under the circumstances supposed, there would be a new distribution of the precious metals among the different countries. Our cheap commodities would be exported in exchange for corn and gold, till the accumulation of gold should lower its value, and raise the money price of commodities.

[61] The Grounds of an Opinion, &c. page 36.

[62] Mr. Malthus, in another part of the same work, supposes commodities to vary 25 or 20 per cent. when corn varies 33⅓.

[63] In Chap. 24. I have observed, that the real resources of a country, and its ability to pay taxes, depend on its net, and not on its gross income.

[64] This is on the supposition that money continued at the same value. In the last note, I have endeavoured to shew that money would not continue of the same value,—that it would fall, from increased importation; a fact which is much more favourable to my argument.

[65] Mr. M’Culloch, in an able publication, has very strongly contended for the justice of making the dividends on the national debt conform to the reduced value of corn. He is in favour of a free trade in corn, but he thinks it should be accompanied by a reduction of interest to the national creditor.

THE END. ERRATA. Page 190, line 8, for obtained, read attained.

521, line 20, for twenty-one shillings, read forty-two shillings.

543, last line, for give, read spend.

555, last line, for rent money, read money rent.

INDEX. A. ACCUMULATION of capital, effects of, on the relative value of commodities, 16-42. And on profits and interest, 398-416. Agriculture, effects of improvements in, on rents, 70-76. Is affected by the distress proceeding from sudden revulsions of trade, 368-372. Agricultural improvements, no cause of the increase of rent, 570, 571. B. Banks, establishment of, affects the sole power of the state in coining money, 502. Consequence of the Bank of England issuing too great a quantity of paper, 503-506. The assistance given by the Bank of England to commerce, accounted for, 513, 514. –See Paper Currency. Bounties, on the exportation of corn, lower its price to the foreign consumer, 417-427. Effects of a bounty in raising the price of corn, illustrated, 428. Though such bounty may cause a partial degradation in the value of money, yet such degradation cannot be permanent, 432-434. Bounties on the exportation of manufactures raise their market but not their natural price, 436-438. The sole effect of bounty is to divert a portion of capital to an employment which it would not naturally seek, 438. Evils of such a system, 439-445. A bounty on the production of corn, will produce no real effect on the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, though it would make corn relatively cheap, and manufactures relatively dear, 449-455. But the effect of a tax on corn, in order to afford a fund for a bounty on the production of commodities, would be to enhance the price of corn, and render commodities cheap, 456, 457. Buchanan (Mr.), observations of, on Adam Smith’s doctrine of productive and unproductive labour, 64-66, note. Remarks on his opinions respecting bounties on exportation, 440-442. C. Capital, nature of, effects of the accumulation of, on the relative value of commodities investigated, 16. Effects of, in a savage or infant state of society, 17, 18, 23, 24. And in a more advanced state of society, 19-21. The relative values of circulating and fixed capitals considered, 22, 23. The distinction between circulating and fixed capitals difficult to be strictly defined, 186, 187. Considerations on the different modes of employing it, 83-88. The increase of capital in quantity and value, productive of a rise in the natural price of wages, 94, 95. Increase of capital in quantity only, productive of a rise in the market price of wages, ibid. Effects of the accumulation of capital on profits and interest, 398-416. The sole effect of bounties on exportation, upon capital, is to divert a portion of it to an employment which it would not naturally seek, 438. Remarks on such effect, 439-445. The profits, made by the employment of capital, regulate the rate of interest for money, 512, 513. Carrying trade, observations on, 407. Circulation of money can never overflow, and why, 500, 501. Circulation of Paper, see Paper Currency. Colonial Trade, observations on, 476, 477. Proofs, that trade with a colony may be so regulated as to be less beneficial to the colony, and more beneficial to the mother country, than a perfectly free trade, 477-486. Benefits of a colonial trade, 487-490. Commodities, gold and silver an insufficient medium for determining the varying value of, 7, 8. Corn, an inadequate standard of the value of, 9-12. The effects of an accumulation of capital on the relative value of commodities, considered, 16-42. Effects of a rise in wages on their value, 43, 44, and of the payment of rent, 45, 46. Their exchangeable value regulated by the greater quantity of labour bestowed on their production by those who labour under the most unfavourable circumstances, 59, 60. The prices of commodities not necessarily increased by a rise in the price of labour, 109, 110. The cost of production regulates the price of commodities, 542, 567, 568, 572, 573. Corn, a variable standard for determining the varying value of things, 7-12. Effects of the price of, on rent, 67-70. Corn-rents materially affected by tithes, 227. Advantage resulting from the relatively low price of corn, 373. Bounties on the exportation of it, lower its price to the foreign consumer, 417-427. Effects of a bounty in raising the price of corn, 428. A bounty on the production of, productive of no real effect on the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, 449-455. The price of corn enhanced by a tax on it, in order to afford a fund for a bounty on the production of commodities, 456, 457. Benefit of a high price of corn to landlords, 474, 475. Investigation of the comparative value of corn, gold, and labour, in rich and in poor countries, 527-537. The production of corn encouraged by alteration in its market price, 574, 575. A fall in the value of corn beneficial to the stockholder, 586. Cultivation, not discouraged by a tax on land and its produce, 238. Currency. See Gold and Silver, Paper Currency. D. Demand and supply, influence of, on prices, considered, 542. Opinion of M. Say on this subject, 544. And of the Earl of Lauderdale, 545-547. Observations thereon, 547, 548. E. Economy in labour, reduces the relative value of commodities, 21. Illustration of this principle, 22-42. Exchange, no criterion of the increased value of money, 178. To be ascertained by estimating the value of the currency in the currency of another country, 181, and also by comparing it with some standard common to both countries, 181-184. Effects of paper currency on exchange, 310-314. Exportation of corn, bounties on, lower its price to the foreign consumer, 417-427. Effects of, in raising the price of corn, illustrated, 428. Bounties on the exportation of manufactures raise the market, but not the natural, price of these, 436-438. F. Farmers pay more poor-rate than the manufacturers, 359-362. Foreign Trade, effects of an extension of, 146, 147. Proofs that the profits of the favoured trade will speedily subside to the general level, 148-154. Funded Property, the price of, no steady criterion by which to judge of the rate of interest, 413-415. G. Gold, and Silver, an insufficient medium for determining the variable value of commodities, 7, 8. But, upon the whole, the least inconvenient standard for money, 80, 81. On whom a tax upon gold would ultimately fall, 249, 250. The value of gold ultimately regulated by the comparative facility or difficulty of producing it, 251. Effects of a tax upon gold, 252-261. Evils of prohibiting a free trade in the precious metals, when the prices of commodities are raised, 309. The value of gold and silver proportioned to the quantity of labour necessary to produce them and bring them to market, 499. Remarks on the employment of these metals in currency, 516. Their relative values at different periods, accounted for, 516-526. Investigation of the comparative value of gold, corn, and labour, in rich and in poor countries, 527-537. Gross Revenue, advantages of, over-rated by Adam Smith, 491. And by M. Say, 492, note. Examination of this doctrine, 492-498. A diminution of gross income, no diminution of net income, 579-583. H. Holland, low rate of interest in, accounted for, 400, note. Houses, rents of, distinguished into two parts, 263. Difference between rent of houses and that of land, 264. Taxes on houses by whom ultimately borne, 266. I. Importation of corn, effects of a prohibition of, considered, 437, 438. Interest, low rate of, in Holland, accounted for, 400, note. Effects of accumulation on profits and interest, 398-410. Observations on the rates of interest, 412-416. The interest for money is regulated by the rate of profits which can be made by the employment of capital, 512, 513. L. Labour, the quantity of, requisite to obtain commodities, the principal source of their exchangeable value, 4, 5. Effects of machinery on, considered, 9-11. Economy in labour reduces the relative value of a commodity, 21, 22. Illustrations of this principle, 22-42. Adam Smith’s theory of productive and unproductive labour, considered, 64-66, notes. Natural price of, explained, 90, 91. Market price of, what, 92. Its influence on the happiness of the labourer, 92, 93. Investigation of the comparative value of labour, gold, and corn, in rich and in poor countries, 527-537. Land, the division of the whole produce of, between landlords, capitalists, and labourers, is the criterion of rent, profits, and wages, 44-48. Its different productive qualities, a cause of rent, 54-58. Effects of increasing its productive powers by agricultural improvements, 70-76. Landlords, tithes injurious to, 229, 230. Benefit of a high price of corn to them, 474, 475. Land-Tax, virtually a tax on rent, 232. Effects of an equal land-tax, imposed indiscriminately on all land cultivated, 234, 235. Error of Dr. Adam Smith, on the inequality of land and all other taxes, accounted for, 236-238. Tax on land and its produce, no bar to cultivation, 238, 239. Operation of the land-tax of Great Britain, considered, 239, 240. Mistake of M. Say, corrected, 241, 242-246. Lauderdale (Earl of), opinion of, on the influence of demand and supply on prices, 545-547. Remarks thereon, 547, 548. Luxuries, observations on the taxing of, 314. Advantages and disadvantages of taxing them, considered, 327-329. M. Machinery, effects of, in fixing the relative values of commodities, 34-41. Malthus (Mr.), examination of the opinions of, on rent, 549-566. The real cost of production regulates the price of commodities, 567, 568, 572, 573. Increase of population no cause of the rise of rent, 569; nor agricultural improvements, 570, 571. His supposition, that net income is diminished, in proportion to a diminution of gross income, disproved, 579-583. Loss of rent, the effect of a low price of corn, 587, 588. Manufactures, improvement of, in any country, tends to alter the distribution of the precious metals among the nations of the world, 157-170. Manufacturers pay less poor rate than farmers, 359-362. The market price of manufactures, but not their natural price, raised by bounties on their exportation, 436-438. Mines, distinguished by their fertility or barrenness, 77-79. Effect of discovering the rich mines of America on the price of the precious metals, 80. Observations on the rent of mines, 462-467. Money, effects of the rise of, in value, on the price of commodities, 43, 44. The rate of profit not affected by variations in the value of money, 46-48. Different value of money in different countries, accounted for, 170-173. The value of money, generally, diminished by improvements in the facility of working the mines of the precious metals, 178. The demand for, regulated by its value, and its value by its quantity, 250, 251. Low value of, in Spain, prejudicial to the commerce and manufactures of that country, 307. Observations on the rates of interest for money, 412-416, 512, 513. The value of, though partially degraded by a bounty on corn, yet not permanently degraded, 432-434. The quantity of, employed in a country, dependant upon its value, 500. Effects of the state charging a seignorage on coining money, 501, 524, 525. Monopoly-price, observations on, 340-345. N. National Debt, observations on, 340. Net Revenue, advantages of, unduly estimated by Adam Smith, 491, and by M. Say, 492, note. Examination of their doctrines, 492-498. Is not diminished by a proportionate diminution of gross revenue, 579-583. P. Paper Currency, circulation of, explained, 501. Paper-money not necessarily payable in specie, to secure its value, 502. But the quantity issued must be regulated according to the value of the standard metal, ibid. 503. The Bank of England, why liable to be drained of specie for its paper currency, 504-506. Compelling the issuers of paper money to pay their notes either in gold coin or bullion, is the only control upon their abusing their power of issuing such money, 507. Provided there were perfect security against such abuse, it is immaterial by whom paper money is issued, 509. Illustration of this point, 510-516. Poor-Laws, pernicious tendency of, as they now exist, 111, 112, 115. Remedies for, 113, 114. Poor-Rates, nature of, 355. How levied, 356-358. More falls on the farmer than on the manufacturer, in proportion to their respective profits, 359-362. Population, increase of, no cause of the rise of rent, 569. Price (real), of things, distinguished, 4. Natural and market prices distinguished, and how governed, 82-89. The prices of commodities not necessarily raised by a rise in the price of labour, 109, 110. Rise of price on raw produce, the only means by which the cultivator can pay the tax imposed thereon, 195. The market, but not the natural price of manufactures, raised by bounties on their exportation, 436-438. The influence of demand and supply on prices, considered, 542-548, 567, 568, 572, 573. Alteration in the market price of corn encourages its production, 574, 575. Produce of land, and labour of the country, must be divided between capitalists, landlords, and labourers, to afford a criterion of rent, profits, and wages, 44-48. Effect of taxes on raw produce, 194. Tax on raw produce raises the price of wages, 199. Objections against taxing the produce of land, considered, 201-224. Remarks on the inconveniences supposed to result from the payment of taxes by the producer, 538-541. Production, difficulty of, benefits the landlord, 76. The cost of production, the regulator of the price of commodities, 542, 567, 568, 572, 573. Profits of stock difficult to ascertain, 410. The quantity of labour necessary to obtain the produce of land, is the criterion by which to estimate the rate of profit, wages, and rent, 44-48. A rise in the price of corn, productive of a diminution in the money value of the farmer’s profits, 117-122. A rise in the price of raw produce, if accompanied by a rise of wages, lowers the agricultural and manufacturing profits, 125-130. Proofs, that profits depend on the quantity of labour requisite to provide necessaries for labourers, on that land, or with that capital which yields no rent, 131-144. Effects of an extension of foreign trade on profits, 146, 147. Proofs, that the profits of the favoured trade will speedily subside to the general level, 148-154. And so with respect to home trade, 155-157. Further proofs that profits depend on real wages, 173-175. Tax on necessaries virtually a tax on profits, 269, 270. Effects of a taxation of profits, considered, 270-284. The profits of stock diminished by a tax on wages, 285. Effects of accumulation on profits and interest, 398-416. Prohibition of importation of corn, effects of, considered, 437, 438. Provisions, causes of the high prices of, 203. First, a deficient supply, ibid.—204. Secondly, a gradually increasing demand, ultimately attended with an increased cost of production, 205. Thirdly, a fall in the value of money, 209. Fourthly, a tax on necessaries, 210. R. Rent, nature of, 49, 50, 52, 362, note. Adam Smith’s doctrine of rents, considered, 50, 51. The different productive qualities of land and increase of population, the cause of rents, 54-58. Rise of, the effect of the increasing wealth of a country, 65, 66. Influence of the prices of corn on rent, 67-69. Effects of agricultural improvements on rent, 70-76. Observations on the rent of mines, 77-81. Tax on rent falls wholly on the landlords, 220-224. Corn-rents materially affected by tithes, 227. Examination of Dr. Adam Smith’s doctrine concerning the rent of land, 458-475. And of Mr. Malthus’s opinions on rent, 549-566. Increase of population is no cause of the rise of rent, 569. Neither are agricultural improvements, 570, 571. Loss of rent, the effect of low price of corn, 587, 588. Riches, defined, 377. Difference between value and riches, 377-386. Means of increasing the riches of a country, 386-388. Erroneous views of M. Say on this subject considered, 388-397. S. Say (M.), erroneous views of, concerning the principles of the land-tax in Great Britain, corrected, 241-244. Examination of some of his principles of taxation, 319-324, 330, 331, notes. Remarks on his mistaken view of value and riches, 388-397. Examination of his doctrine concerning bounties on exportation, 443-448. And on gross and net revenue, 492-498. Danger resulting from his recommendation respecting the charging of seignorage for coining money, 525, 526, notes. Observations on his statement of the inconveniences resulting from payment of taxes by the producer, 538-540. His opinion on the influence of demand and supply on prices, considered, 544, 545. Scarcity, a source of exchangeable value, 2. Seignorage, effects of, on the value of money, 501, 524, 525. Simonde (M.), remarks on the opinion of, concerning the inconveniences resulting from the payment of taxes by the producer, 540, 541. Silver. See Gold and Silver. Sinking fund, in England, merely nominal, 340. How conducted, 510. Smith (Dr. Adam), on the meaning of the term value, 1. His doctrine that corn is a proper medium for fixing the varying value of other things, examined, 7-9. Strictures on his doctrine relative to labour being the sole ultimate standard of the exchangeable value of commodities, 10, 11, 575, 576. And on his definitions of rent, 49, 50. His theory of productive and unproductive labour considered, 64-66, notes. Correction of his erroneous view of the inequality of taxes on land, and all other taxes, 236-238. His opinion on the taxes upon the wages of labour, 286. Examination thereof by Mr. Buchanan, 287-292. Observations thereon by the author of this work, 293-306. Correction of his mistaken view of taxes upon luxuries, 314-319. Remarks on his doctrine concerning bounties on exportation, 420, 422-439. Examination of his doctrine concerning the rent of land, 458-475. And on gross and net revenue, 492-498. Strictures on his principles of paper-currency, 503-508. His statement respecting the advantages of the Scottish mode of affording accommodation to trade, disproved, 515, 516-523. Remarks on his doctrine relative to the comparative value of gold, corn, and labour, in rich and in poor countries, 529-537. Spain, commerce and manufactures of, injured by the low value of money there, 307. Stamp-duty, weight of, a bar to the transfer of landed property, 267, 268. T. Taxes, nature of, explained, 186. Impolicy of taxes on capital, 190. Taxes upon the transfer of property, 191. On whom the several kinds of taxes principally fall, 192. Objections to taxes on the transference of property, 192, 193. Effect of taxes on raw produce, 194. A rise of price in raw produce the only means by which the cultivator can pay the tax, 195. Such tax in fact paid by the consumer, 196-198. Tax on raw produce and on the necessaries of the labourer, raises the price of wages, 199. Objections against the taxation of the produce of land, considered and refuted, 201-224. Tithes, an equal tax, 225. Difference between them and a tax on raw produce, 226. Objections to them, 227-231. Tax on land, virtually a tax on rent, 232. They ought to be clear and certain, 233, 234. Effects of taxes on gold, considered, 247-261. Ground rents, not a fair subject of taxation, 267. Taxes on houses by whom ultimately borne, 266. Taxes on necessaries, virtually a tax on profits, 269, 270. Effects of taxation of profits considered, 270-284. Taxes upon luxuries, 314. Advantages and disadvantages of, 327-329. Supposed absurdities in taxation, explained and obviated, 315-317. Proper objects of taxation, 326. Observations on the taxation of other commodities than raw produce, 330. Effect of taxes to defray the interest of loans, 332-334. Remarks on the tax upon malt, and every other tax on raw produce, 346-353. Nature and operation of the poor-rate, 355-362. Examination of the inconveniences supposed to be sustained by the payment of taxes by the producer, 538-541. Tithes, nature of, 225. Are an equal tax, ibid. Difference between tithes and a tax on raw produce, 226. Tithes materially affect corn-rents, 227. They act as a bounty on importation, and therefore are injurious to landlords, 229, 230. Do not discourage cultivation, 237, 238. Trade, general causes of sudden changes in the channels of, 363-365. More particularly the commencement of war after a long peace, or vice versa, 365-368. The effects of such revulsions on agriculture, considered, 369-376. Observations on the carrying trade, 407. See Foreign Trade. U. Utility, essential to exchangeable value, 2. V. Value, definition of, 1. The distinctive properties of value and riches considered, 377-397. See Labour. Utility essential to exchangeable value, 2. Scarcity, one source of such value, ibid. The quantity of labour required to obtain commodities, the principal source of their exchangeable value, 3-15. The effects of accumulation of capital on relative value, 16-42. Effects of a rise in wages, on relative value, 43, 44. Effects of payment of rent, on value, 45, 46. Variations in the value of money make no difference in the rate of profits, 46, 47. The value of gold and silver is in proportion to the labour necessary to produce and bring them to market, 499, 500. Investigation of the comparative value of gold, corn, and labour, in rich and in poor countries, 527-537. W. Wages, effects of a rise in, on relative value, 27-33, 43, 44, 48. Natural and market prices of labour, 90-93. Increase of capital in quantity and value, increases the natural price of wages, 94, 95. Increase of capital, but not in value, augments the market price of wages, ibid. Proofs that the increasing difficulty of providing an additional quantity of food with the same proportional quantity of labour, will raise wages, 97-104. A rise in wages not necessarily productive of comfort to the labourer, 105-108. A rise of wages not necessarily productive of a rise in the prices of commodities, 109, 110, 286-289. Wages will be raised by a tax on necessaries, 269-270. And by a tax on wages, 285. Effects of a tax upon wages, considered, 297-306. Wealth, causes of the increase of, 66. J. McCreery, Printer, Black-Horse-court, London.

Albemarle-street, London, May, 1817.

NEW PUBLICATIONS. SPEECH of the Rt. Hon. GEORGE CANNING, 25th Feb. on the Motion for a Reduction of the Lords of the Admiralty, 8vo. 2s.

The APOSTATE; a Tragedy, in Five Acts: now performing at the Theatre in Covent Garden. By Richard Sheil, Esq. 8vo. 3s.

LETTER to WILLIAM SMITH, ESQ. M. P. for Norwich, from Robert Southey, Esq. 8vo. 2s.

A SERMON, preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, on Thursday, March 6, 1817, before the Honourable Sir James Allan Park, one of the Justices of his Majesty’s Court of Common Pleas, and the Honourable Sir James Burrough, one of the Justices of His Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench, and before the University, at the Lent Assizes, by John Davison, M. A. Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, 4to. 1s. 6d.

PHROSYNE, a Grecian Tale. ALASHTAR, an Arabian Tale, by H. Gally Knight, Esq. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

MODERN GREECE: a Poem, 8vo. 5s. 6d.

MANUSCRIT, VENU DE ST. HELENE, d’une Manière inconnue; 8vo. 7s. 6d.

This Work, which is equally distinguished by its spirit and its ingenuity, was given to the Publisher with an assurance of its being brought from St. Helena, though an air of mystery was affectedly thrown round the mode of its conveyance.

Whether it be really written by Buonaparte, or by some confidential friend, is a matter that must be left entirely to conjecture. It bears some resemblance to his style, more to his manner, and is altogether just what the ostensible Author, or an able apologist under his name, might be expected to say of his opinions, motives, and actions.

A TRANSLATION of the Above, 8vo. 7s. 6d.

On the PRINCIPLES of POLITICAL ECONOMY and TAXATION. By David Ricardo, Esq. 8vo. 14s.

PRIVATE MEMOIRS, which, with the Work of M. Hue, and the Journal of Clery, complete the History of the Captivity of the Royal Family of France in the Temple. Written originally with a Pencil and preserved by stealth, by Madame Royale, now Duchess of Angouleme. Translated from the French, with Notes by the Translator. Neatly printed in a small Volume, 5s. 6d.

NARRATIVE of the Loss of the AMERICAN BRIG COMMERCE, wrecked on the Western Coast of Africa, in 1815; with an account of the Sufferings of her surviving Officers and Crew, who were enslaved by the Wandering Arabs on the Great African Desert; and Observations, made during the Travels of the Author, while a Slave to the Arabs. By James Riley, late Master and Supercargo. Concluded by a Description of the City of Tombuctoo, on the River Niger, and of another large City, far south of it, on the same River, called Wassannah. Printed uniformly with Park’s, and Adams’s Travels in Africa, 4to. with a Map.

ARMATA: a Fragment, THIRD EDITION. 8vo. 8s. 6d.

MANUEL: a Tragedy. By the Author of Bertram; 8vo. 4s. 6d.

ALGEBRA of the HINDUS, with Arithmetic and Mensuration; translated from the Sanscrit. By H. T. Colebrooke, Esq. 4to. 3l. 3s.

“AN HEIR in HIS OLD AGE,” A CHINESE Comedy; being the second Drama ever translated from the original Chinese into any language. By J. F. Davis, Esq. of Canton: with a brief View of the Chinese Drama, and of their Theatrical Exhibitions, by the Editor, small 8vo. 5s. 6d.

THE COMFORTS of OLD AGE. With Biographical Illustrations. By Sir Thomas Bernard, Bart. Second Edition, small 8vo. 7s.

CURIOSITIES of LITERATURE. Sixth Edition, (with an additional Volume) 3 vols. 8vo. 36s. The Third Volume, 12s.

TALES OF MY LANDLORD. Third Edition. In four Volumes, 12mo. 28s.

NARRATIVE of a RESIDENCE in BELGIUM during the Campaign of 1815, and of a Visit to the Field of Waterloo. By an Englishwoman, 8vo. 10s. 6d.

STORIES selected from the HISTORY of ENGLAND. For Children. Second Edition. 3s. should be ital] 6d. Bound.

TRAVELS ABOVE THE CATARACTS OF EGYPT, NUBIA, &c. By Thomas Legh, Esq. M. P. with a Map, 4to. 21s.

The LIFE of RAFFAELLO of URBINO. By the Author of the Life of Michael Angelo, 8vo. 8s. 6d.

AN ACCOUNT of the singular Habits and Circumstances of the People of the Tonga Islands, in the South Pacific Ocean. By Mr. William Mariner, of the Port au Prince, private Ship of War; the greater part of whose crew was massacred by the natives of Lefooga. 2 vols. 8vo, with a Portrait, 24s.

LORD BYRON’S POEMS, printed uniformly, and sold separately, in Octavo.—1. Childe Harold, Cantos I. and II, 12s.—2. Childe Harold, Canto III, 5s. 6d.—3. The Giaour, 5s. 6d.—4. The Bride of Abydos, 5s. 6d.—5. The Corsair, 5s. 6d.—6. Lara, 5s. 6d.—7. Siege of Corinth and Parisina, 5s. 6d.—8. Prisoner of Chillon, 5s. 6d.—9. Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte, 1s. 6d.—10. Hebrew Melodies, 5s. 6d.—11. Poems, containing Fare Thee Well, &c. 2s.—12. Monody on Sheridan, 1s.—Forming, together Three Octavo Volumes.

TWELVE PLATES, illustrative of the Poems of LORD BYRON, engraved by C. Heath, and other Artists, from the original Designs of Stothard. Printed in 8vo. to suit the above Edition, 1l. 10s.

JOURNAL of a TOUR in GERMANY, SWEDEN, RUSSIA, POLAND, &c. during the Years 1813 and 1814. By J. T. James, Esq. Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Second Edition, 2 vol. 8vo. with Twelve Plates, 30s.

OUTLINES of GEOLOGY. Being the Substance of a Course of Lectures delivered in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, by W. T. Brande, Sec. R. S. F. R. S. E. Prof. Chem. R. I. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

THE UNEDITED ANTIQUITIES of ATTICA, comprising the Architectural Remains of Eleusis, Rhamnus, Sunium, and Thoricus. By the Dilettanti Society. Printed uniformly with Stuart’s Athens, with 84 Plates, in folio. 10l. 10s.

A COURSE OF MILITARY INSTRUCTION, by C. W. PASLEY, Lieut. Colonel in the Corps of Royal Engineers, and F. R. S. Comprising Practical Geometry, the Principles of Plan Drawing, and Elementary Fortification, in three vols. 8vo. containing 1190 Engravings, 3l. in boards.

Vols. II. and III. containing Elementary Fortification, may be had separately, 2l. 5s.

TRAVELS in the INTERIOR of AFRICA, by ROBERT ADAMS, who was detained three years in Slavery by the Arabs of the Great Desert, and resided several Months at Tombuctoo. With a Map. Printed uniformly with Park’s Travels, in 4to. 25s.

STATEMENTS RESPECTING THE EAST INDIA COLLEGE. By the Rev. T. R. Malthus, 8vo. 3s. 6d.

On the OPERATION of the SALT DUTIES, and a Proposal for their Repeal. By Sir Thomas Bernard, Bart. 8vo. 3s.

HISTORY of the UNIVERSITY of EDINBURGH, compiled from Original Papers and Records. By Alexander Bower, 2 vol. 8vo. 24s.

London: Printed by W. Bulmer and Co. Cleveland-row, St. James’s.