On Political Economy. 
253 
1831 .] — - 
ground to market. In the present circumstances of the world, his case might 
happen, in an island or other district separated from the rest of the world, where 
no colonists could go out, nor any produce could come in. And, thirdly, it might 
happen in a country where a body of landholders having usurped the legislative 
power of the state, made use of that power to prohibit their fellow-citizens from 
migrating, or from exchanging their manufactured goods for food produced in new- 
ly peopled countries. But such a set of men would deserve to be regarded as no 
better than a public nuisance, like a swarm of locusts, or a blight on the harvest. 
Yet it is hardly probable, that even in this case men would be again reduced to 
the pristine state of poverty. Having, in spite of the law of population before 
alluded to, once raised themselves into civilization, and enjoyed a portion of what 
the writer terms ‘ secondary wealth,’ this has partly become essential to them. 
For instance, if the landlords of Europe were to allow no more to the labouring 
class than a bare sufficiency of corn to satisfy hunger, what would be the conse- 
quence? Possessing neither clothing nor lodging, would not great part or the whole 
of these wretched beings perish ? Undoubtedly they would. And this leads us back to 
his first assertion ; (No. 1,) that food is the only essential to man’s existence besides 
water, and air, and here we reach the root from which all his fallacies spring. 
Food is not the only essential to man’s existence. Clothing and. housing are also 
essential, at least without the tropics. Thus, instead of the rest of the commu- 
nity being placed in a state of complete dependance on the original agriculturist or 
landlord, so that he can at pleasure withhold from them his surplus food, and 
compel them to labour for him on his own terms ; the dependance is reciprocal. 
The grower of corn needs the labours of the clothier and the mason, as much as 
they need his. 
The substance of the writer’s argument is not new. It is the daily cry of ad\ ocates 
of Corn Laws, and advocates of sinecures, that no increasing price and value of 
food can be obtained, nor the contrary ; for the market is so overstocked with 
labour, that the law of competition would prevent the labourer by any means 
getting more than he does ; less than that, he cannot exist upon. But they are, 
in general, too wary disputants to state as boldly as the writer does, the only cir- 
cumstances in which their assertion would hold good, namely, when the population 
* 8 in a state of utter destitution, ready to exchange their utmost exertions for a bare 
sufficiency of food to support life. Our writer too, though he has stated this case 
118 a matter of fact, would seem to think it a little preposterous, for we find him in 
lis ne *t paper endeavouring to extricate himself from it, forgetting, that in so doing 
he is destroying the very foundation on which his conclusion rested ; we have 
n supposed, that “ some wrought wares are as necessary to the existence of man 
88 f °od,” and he allows, “ it is very true that in practice there is nothing which 
Presses an intrinsic, or invariable real value.’’ Here, too, we have him blaming 
Mr - Ricardo for maintaining, that “ although a million of men may, after t ie 
'Production of improvements in production, make double or treble the amo 
(,f ricl ‘es; they will not thereby have made any increase in value,” because 
Wlth fhe real increase of wealth, appreciators of value ( i. e. population), must 
mcrease. 
1{ ut some time must elapse before the population can increase, and during that 
at least, Mr. Ricardo’s assertion will hold true. The phrase used implies tffis, 
f ° r 11 15 not “ they will not also make,” as if referring to the future effec 
Production, but “they will not thereby have made,” meaning, t lat > ,e “ 
« Ct of Producing, they will not also have created beings to consume. or e 
must increase,’ read ‘may probably increase;’ for, see his own nor s 
