London, 31st Oe ploye tober 1843. explained this by saying,
that if the consumer had less money to Sin—A few more words on Mr. COBDEN'S theory of the revival of trade, be- spend upon commodities, or the labour of the country, when corn was dear, cause I think the letter of "A Liberal Elector," dissenting thereto, in your the sellers of corn had more money; and that, so far as the mere question of paper of the 14th October, has not been answered in the manner in which it employment is involved, the loss to the labour of the country, by the consumers seems to me it can be. having less money, was balanced by the additional employment given to the In your own remarks in the paper of the 28th October, the argument comes labour of the country by the seller of the agricultural produce having more more from the ultimate than the immediate effects of price, and is not so much money to spend. This position I consider self-evident; and I must say I do not on the surface, and so apprehensible, as the answer which has occurred to me. think it has been fairly met either by you or your correspondents. The whole error`of "A Liberal Elector" lies in the assumption, that "the A labourer, when corn is cheap, buys his bread by giving, we will say, three sellers of agricultural produce during high prices have 60,000,000/. additional to hours out of every day's work to the corn-merchant; or in other words, he spend upon the manufactures of the country; and that the loss to one set of gives him the manufactures which cost him three hours' labour. The remain- customers is balanced by the gain of another set of customers." ing six hours, supposing him to work nine hours a day, are spent in labouring If the sellers in both instances bad the same quantity of agricultural produce to dispose of, then I admit they would be gainers to the whole extent of the of other commodities; and thus he calls into employment 60,000,0001., and might spend it on the manufactures of the country, subject corn is dear, the manufacturing But, as I understand the circumstances, the very reason for an advance in price is a diminution in the quantity; and though, therefore, the buyers may pay 60,000,000/. more in provisioning themselves, the sellers and growers are very little the richer for it, taking them as a body and in the aggregate.
the price rises to 658. per quarter, which makes his wheat produce yield him 10/. 7s. 2d.• the gain to him being only 7s. an acre, whereas the loss to the P.S. I am not inclined to believe in simplicity of causation in human affairs, and there may be other causes working concurrently with a low price of pro- visions to stimulate a return of prosperous trade. It is a subject worthy of
Previous page
