第10章
Theessenceofthetheoryisthatrent，beingthepricepaidbythecultivatortotheowneroflandfortheuseofitsproductive
powers，isequaltotheexcessoithepriceoftheproduceotthelandoverthecostofproductiononthatland。Withthe
increaseofpopulation，andthereforeofdemandforfood，inferiorsoilswillbetakenintocultivation;andthepriceofthe
entiresupplynecessaryforthecommunitywillberegulatedbythecostofproductionofthatportionofthesupplywhichis
producedatthegreatestexpense。Butforthelandwhichwillbarelyrepaythecostofcultivationnorentwillbepaid。Hence
therentofanyqualityoflandwillbeequaltothedifferencebetweenthecostofproductiononthatlandandthecostof
productionofthatproducewhichisraisedatthegreatestexpense。
Thedoctrineisperhapsmosteasilyapprehendedbymeansofthesuppositionheremadeofthecoexistenceinacountryofa
seriesofsoilsofdifferentdegreesoffertilitywhicharesuccessivelytakenintocultivationaspopulationincreases。Butit
wouldbeanerrortobelieve，thoughRicardosometimesseemstoimplyit，thatsuchdifferenceisanecessaryconditionof
theexistenceofrent。Ifallthelandofacountrywereofequalfertility，stillifitwereappropriated，andifthepriceoithe
produceweremorethananequivalentforthelabourandcapitalappliedtoitsproduction，rentwouldbepaid。This
imaginarycase，however，afterusingittoclearourconceptions，wemayiorthefutureleaveoutofaccount。
Thepriceofproducebeing，aswehavesaid，regulatedbythecostofproductionofthatwhichpaysnorent，itisevidentthat
"cornisnothighbecausearentispaid，butarentispaidbecausecornishigh，"andthat"noreductionwouldtakeplacein
thepriceofcornalthoughlandlordsshouldforegothewholeoftheirrent。"Rentis，infact，nodeterminingelementofprice;
itispaid，indeed，outoitheprice，butthepricewouldbethesameifnorentwerepaid，andthewholepricewereretainedby
thecultivator。
IthasoftenbeendoubtedwhetherornotAdamSmithheldthistheoryofrent。Sometimesheuseslanguagewhichseemsto
implyit，andstatesprepositionswhich，ifdeveloped，wouldinfalliblyleadtoit。Thushesays，inapassagealreadyquoted，
"Suchpartsonlyoftheproduceoflandcancommonlybebroughttomarketofwhichtheordinarypriceissufficientto
replacethestockwhichmustbeemployedinbringingthemthither，togetherwithitsordinaryprofits。Iftheordinarypriceis
morethanthis，thesurpluspartofitwillnaturallygototherentofland。Ifitisnotmore，thoughthecommoditycanbe
broughttomarket，itcanaffordnorenttothelandlord。Whetherthepriceisorisnotmoredependsonthedemand。"Again，
inSmith’sapplicationoftheseconsiderationstomines，"thewholeprincipleofrent，"Ricardotellsus，"isadmirablyand
perspicuouslyexplained。"Buthehadformedtheopinionthatthereisinfactnolandwhichdoesnotaffordarenttothe
landlord;and，strangely，heseemstohaveseenthatthisappearancemightarisefromtheaggregationintoaneconomic
wholeofparcelsoflandwhichcanandotherswhichcannotpayrent。Thetruth，indeed，is，thatthefact，ifitwereafact，that
allthelandinacountrypaysrentwouldbeirrelevantasanargumentagainsttheAndersoniantheory，foritisthesamething
insubstanceiftherebeanycapitalemployedonlandalreadycultivatedwhichyieldsareturnnomorethanequaltoordinary
profits。Suchlast—employedcapitalcannotaffordrentattheexistingrateofprofit，unlessthepriceofproduceshouldrise。
ThebeliefwhichsomehaveentertainedthatSmith，notwithstandingsomevagueorinaccurateexpressions，reallyheldthe
Andersoniandoctrine，canscarcelybemaintainedwhenwerememberthatHume，writingtohimafterhavingreadforthe
firsttimetheWealthofNations，whilstexpressinggeneralagreementwithhisopinions，said（apparentlywithreferenceto
Bk。I，chap。vii），"Icannotthinkthattherentoffarmsmakesanypartofthepriceoftheproduce，butthatthepriceis
determinedaltogetherbythequantityandthedemand。"Itisfurthernoteworthythatastatementofthetheoryofrentiseven
inthesamevolume，publishedin1777，whichcontainsAnderson’spolemicagainstSmith’sobjectionstoabountyonthe
exportationofcorn;thisvolumecanhardlyhaveescapedSmith’snotice，yetneitherbyitscontentsnorbyHume’sletterwas
heledtomodifywhathehadsaidinhisfirsteditiononthesubjectofrent。
Itmustberememberedthatnotmerelytheunequalfertilitiesofdifferentsoilswilldeterminedifferencesofrent;themoreor
lessadvantageoussituationofafarminrelationtomarkets，andthereforetoroadsandrailways，willhaveasimilareffect。
Comparativelownessofthecostoitransitwillenabletheproducetobebroughttomarketatasmallerexpense，andwill
thusincreasethesurpluswhichconstitutesrent。ThisconsiderationisindicatedbyRicardo，thoughhedoesnotgiveit
prominence，butdwellsmainlyonthecomparativeproductivenessofsoils。
RentisdefinedbyRicardoasthepricepaidfortheuseof"theoriginalandindestructiblepowersofthesoil。"Hethus
differentiatesrent，asheusestheterm，fromwhatispopularlydesignatedbytheword;and，whenitistobetakeninhis
sense，itisoftenqualifiedasthe，"true"or"economic"rent。Partofwhatispaidtothelandlordisoftenreallyprofitonhis
expenditureinpreparingthefarmforcultivationbythetenant。Butitistobeborneinmindthatwhereversuch
improvementsare"amalgamatedwiththeland，"and"addpermanentlytoitsproductivepowers，"thereturnforthemfollows
thelaws，notofprofit，butofrent。Henceitbecomesdifficult，ifnotimpossible，inpracticetodiscriminatewithanydegree
ofaccuracytheamountreceivedbythelandlord"fortheuseoftheoriginalpowersofthesoil"fromtheamountreceivedby
himasremunerationforhisimprovementsorthosemadebyhispredecessors。Thesehaveraisedthefarm，asaninstrument
forproducingfood，fromoneclassofproductivenesstoahigher，andthecaseisthesameasifnaturehadoriginallyplaced
thelandinquestioninthathigherclass。
Smithhadtreateditasthepeculiarprivilegeofagriculture，ascomparedwithotherformsofproduction，thatinit"nature
laboursalongwithman，"andtherefore，whilsttheworkmeninmanufacturesoccasionthereproductionmerelyoithecapital
whichemploysthemwithitsowner’sprofits，theagriculturallaboureroccasionsthereproduction，notonlyoftheemployer’s
capitalwithprofits，butalsooftherentofthelandlord。Thislastheviewedasthefreegiftofnaturewhichremained"after
deductingorcompensatingeverythingwhichcanberegardedastheworkofman。"Ricardojustlyobservesinreplythat
"thereisnotamanufacturewhichcanbementionedinwhichnaturedoenotgiveherassistancetoman。"Hethengoesonto
quotefromBuchanantheremarkthat"thenotionofagricultureyieldingaproduceandarentinconsequence，because
natureconcurswithindustryintheprocessofcultivation，isamerefancy。Itisnotfromtheproduce，butfromthepriceat
whichtheproduceissold，thattherentisderived;andthispriceisgot，notbecausenatureassistsintheproduction，but
becauseitisthepricewhichsuitstheconsumptiontothesupply。"（43）Thereisnogaintothesocietyatlargefromtheriseof
rent;itisadvantageoustothelandlordsalone，andtheirinterestsarethuspermanentlyinoppositiontothoseofallother
classes。Theriseofrentmayberetarded，orprevented，oreventemporarilychangedtoafall，byagriculturalimprovements，
suchastheintroductionofnewmanuresorofmachinesorofabetterorganisationoflabour（thoughthereisnotsomuch
roomforthislastasinotherbranchesofproduction），ortheopeningofnewsourcesofsupplyinforeigncountries;butthe
tendencytoariseisconstantsolongasthepopulationincreases。
ThegreatimportanceofthetheoryofrentinRicardo’ssystemarisesfromthefactthathemakesthegeneraleconomic
conditionofthesocietytodependaltogetheronthepositioninwhichagriculturalexploitationstands。Thiswillbeseenfrom
thefollowingstatementofhistheoryofwagesandprofits。Theproduceofeveryexpenditureoflabourandcapitalbeing
dividedbetweenthelabourerandthecapitalist，inproportionasoneobtainsmoretheother，willnecessarilyobtainless。The
productivenessoflabourbeinggiven，nothingcandiminishprofitbutariseofwagesorincreaseitbutafallofwages。Now
thepriceoflabour，beingthesameasitscostofproduction，isdeterminedbythepriceofthecommoditiesnecessaryforthe
supportofthelabourer。Thepriceofsuchmanufacturedarticlesasherequireshasaconstanttendencytofall，principallyby
reasonoftheprogressiveapplicationofthedivisionoflabourtotheirproduction。Butthecostofhismaintenanceessentially
depends，notonthepriceofthosearticles，butonthatofhisfood;and，astheproductionoffoodwillintheprogressof
societyandofpopulationrequirethesacrificeofmoreandmorelabour，itspricewillrise;moneywageswillconsequently
rise，andwiththeriseofwagesprofitswillfall。Thusitistothenecessarygradualdescenttoinferiorsoils，orlessproductive
expenditureonthesamesoil，thatthedecreaseintherateofprofitwhichhashistoricallytakenplaceistobeattributed
（Smithascribedthisdecreasetothecompetitionofcapitalists，thoughinoneplace，BookI，chap。ix，（44）hehadaglimpseof
theRicardianview）。Thisgravitationofprofitstowardsaminimumishappilycheckedattimesbyimprovementsofthe
machineryemployedintheproductionofnecessaries，andespeciallybysuchdiscoveriesinagricultureandothercausesas
reducethecostoftheprimenecessaryofthelabourer;buthereagainthetendencyisconstant。Whilstthecapitalistthus
loses，thelabourerdoesnotgain;hisincreasedmoneywagesonlyenablehimtopaytheincreasedpriceofhisnecessaries，
ofwhichhewillhavenogreaterandprobablyalesssharethanhehadbefore。Infact，thelabourercanneverforany
considerabletimeearnmorethanwhatisrequiredtoenabletheclasstosubsistinsuchadegreeofcomfortascustomhas
madeindispensabletothem，andtoperpetuatetheirracewithouteitherincreaseordiminution。Thatisthe"natural"priceof
labour;andifthemarketratetemporarilyrisesaboveitpopulationwillbestimulated，andtherateofwageswillagainfall。
Thuswhilstrenthasaconstanttendencytoriseandprofittofall，theriseorfallofwageswilldependontherateofincrease
oftheworkingclasses。FortheimprovementoftheirconditionRicardothushastofallbackontheMalthusianremedy，of
theeffectiveapplicationofwhichhedoesnot，however，seemtohavemuchexpectation。Thesecuritiesagainsta
superabundantpopulationtowhichhepointsarethegradualabolitionofthepoor—laws——fortheiramendmentwouldnot
contenthim——andthedevelopmentamongsttheworkingclassesofatasteforgreatercomfortsandenjoyments。
Itwillbeseenthatthesocialistshavesomewhatexaggeratedinannouncing，asRicardo’s"ironlaw"ofwages，theirabsolute
identitywiththeamountnecessarytosustaintheexistenceofthelabourerandenablehimtocontinuetherace。He
recognizestheinfluenceofa"standardofliving"aslimitingtheincreaseofthenumbersoftheworkingclasses，andso
keepingtheirwagesabovethelowestpoint。Buthealsoholdsthat，inlong—settledcountries，intheordinarycourseof
humanaffairs，andintheabsenceofspecialeffortsrestrictingthegrowthofpopulation，theconditionofthelabourerwill
declineassurely，andfromthesamecauses，asthatofthelandlordwillbeimproved。
IfweareaskedwhetherthisdoctrineofrentandtheconsequenceswhichRicardodeducedfromit，aretrue，wemust
answerthattheyarehypotheticallytrueinthemostadvancedindustrialcommunities，andthereonly（thoughtheyhavebeen
rashlyappliedtothecasesofIndiaandIreland），butthateveninthosecommunitiesneithersafeinferencenorsoundaction
canbebuiltuponthem。Asweshallseehereafter，thevalueofmostofthetheoremsoftheclassicaleconomicsisagood
dealattenuatedbythehabitualassumptionsthatwearedealingwith"economicmen，"actuatedbyoneprincipleonly;that
custom，asagainstcompetition，hasnoexistence;thatthereisnosuchthingascombination;thatthereisequalityofcontract
betweenthepartiestoeachtransaction，andthatthereisadefiniteuniversalrateofprofitandwagesinacommunity;this
lastpostulateimplying（1）thatthecapitalembarkedinanyundertakingwillpassatoncetoanotherinwhichlargerprofits
areforthetimetobemade;（2）thatalabourer，whateverhislocaltiesoffeeling，family，habit，orotherengagements，will
transferhimselfimmediatelytoanyplacewhere，oremploymentinwhich，forthetime，largerwagesaretobeearnedthan
thosehehadpreviouslyobtained;（45）and（3）thatbothcapitalistsandlabourershaveaperfectknowledgeofthecondition
andprospectsofindustrythroughoutthecountry，bothintheirownandotheroccupations。ButinRicardo’sspeculationson
rentanditsconsequencesthereisstillmoreofabstraction。Theinfluenceofemigration，whichhasassumedvastdimensions
sincehistime，isleftoutofaccount，andtheamountoflandatthedisposalofacommunityissupposedlimitedtoitsown
territory，whilstcontemporaryEuropeisinfactlargelyfedbythewesternStatesofAmerica。Wedidnotadequately
appreciatethedegreeinwhichtheaugmentedproductivenessoflabour，whetherfromincreasedintelligence，improved
organization，introductionofmachinery，ormorerapidandcheapercommunication，steadilykeepsdownthecostof
production。Totheseinfluencesmustbeaddedthoseoflegalreformsintenure，andfairerconditionsincontracts，which
operateinthesamedirection。Asaresultofallthesecauses，thepressureanticipatedbyRicardoisnotfelt，andthecryisof
thelandlordsoverfallingrents。notoftheconsumeroverrisingprices。Theentireconditionsareinfactsoalteredthat
ProfessorNicholson，noenemytothe"orthodox"，economics，whenrecentlyconductinganinquiryintothepresentstateof
theagriculturalquestion，（46）pronouncedtheso—calledRicardiantheoryofrent"tooabstracttobeofpracticalutility。"
AparticulareconomicsubjectonwhichRicardohasthrownausefullightisthenatureoftheadvantagesderivedfrom
foreigncommerce，andtheconditionsunderwhichsuchcommercecangoon。Whilstprecedingwritershadrepresented
thosebenefitsasconsistinginaffordingaventforsurplusproduce，orenablingaportionofthenationalcapitaltoreplace
itselfwithaprofit，hepointedoutthattheyconsist"simplyandsolelyinthis，thatitenableseachnationtoobtain，witha
givenamountoflabourandcapital，agreaterquantityofallcommoditiestakentogether。"Thisisnodoubtthepointofview
atwhichweshouldhabituallyplaceourselves;thoughtheotherformsofexpressionemployedbyhispredecessors，
includingAdamSmith，aresometimesusefulasrepresentingrealconsiderationsaffectingnationalproduction，andneednot
beabsolutelydisused。
Ricardoproceedstoshowthatwhatdeterminesthepurchaseofanycommodityfromaforeigncountryisnotthe
circumstancethatitcanbeproducedtherewithlesslabourandcapitalthanathome。Ifwehaveagreaterpositiveadvantage
intheproductionofsomeotherarticlethaninthatofthecommodityinquestion，eventhoughwehaveanadvantagein
producingthelatter，itmaybeourinteresttodevoteourselvestotheproductionofthatinwhichwehavethegreatest
advantage，andtoimportthatinproducingwhichweshouldhavealess，thoughareal，advantage。Itis，inshort，not
absolutecostofproduction，butcomparativecost，whichdeterminestheinterchange。Thisremarkisjustandinteresting，
thoughanundueimportanceseemstobeattributedtoitbyJ。S。WillandCairnes，thelatterofwhommagniloquently
describesitas"soundingthedepths"oftheproblemofinternationaldealings，——though，asweshallseehereafter，he
modifiesitbytheintroductionofcertainconsiderationsrespectingtheconditionsofdomesticproduction。
Forthenationasawhole，accordingtoRicardo，itisnotthegrossproduceofthelandandlabour，asSmithseemstoassert，
thatisofimportance，butthenetincome——theexcess，thatis，ofthisproduceoverthecostofproduction，or，inother
words，theamountofitsrentanditsprofits;forthewagesoflabour，notessentiallyexceedingthemaintenanceofthe
labourers，arebyhimconsideredonlyasapartofthe"necessaryexpensesofproduction。"Henceitfollows，ashehimselfin
acharacteristicandoftenquotedpassagesays，that，"providedthenetrealincomeofthenationbethesame，itisofno
importancewhetheritconsistsoftenortwelvemillionsofinhabitants。Iffivemillionsofmencouldproduceasmuchfond
andclothingaswasnecessaryfortenmillions，foodandclothingforfivemillionswouldbethenetrevenue。Woulditbeof
anyadvantagetothecountrythattoproducethissamenetrevenuesevenmillionsofmenshouldberequired，——thatisto
say，thatsevenmillionsshouldbeemployedtoproducefoodandclothingsufficientfortwelvemillions？Thefoodand
clothingoffivemillionswouldbestillthenetrevenue。Theemployingagreaternumberofmenwouldenableusneitherto
addamantoourarmyandnavynortocontributeoneguineamoreintaxes。"Industryishereviewed，justasbythe
mercantilists，inrelationtothemilitaryandpoliticalpowerofthestate，nottothemaintenanceandimprovementofhuman
beings，asitsendandaim。Thelabourer，asHeld（47）hasremarked，isregardednotasamemberofsociety，butasameansto
theendsofsociety，onwhosesustenanceapartofthegrossincomemustbeexpended，asanotherpartmustbespentonthe
sustenanceofhorses。Wemaywellask，asSismondididinapersonalinterviewwithRicardo，"What！iswealththen
everything？aremenabsolutelynothing！"
OnthewholewhatseemstoustrueofRicardoisthis，that，whilsthehadremarkablepowers，theywerenotthepowersbest
fittedforsociologicalresearch。Natureintendedhimratherforamathematicianofthesecondorderthanforasocial
philosopher。Norhadhetheduepreviouspreparationforsocialstudies;forwemustdeclinetoacceptBagehot’sideathat，
though"innohighsenseaneducatedman，"hehadaspeciallyapttrailingforsuchstudiesinhispracticeasaneminently
successfuldealerinstocks。Thesamewriterjustlynoticesthe"anxiouspenetrationwithwhichhefollowsoutrarefied
minutia。"Buthewantedbreadthofsurvey，acomprehensiveviewofhumannatureandhumanlife，andthestrongsocial
sympathieswhich，asthegreatestmindshaverecognized，areamostvaluableaidinthisdepartmentofstudy。Onasubject
likethatofmoney，whereafewelementarypropositions—intowhichnomoralingrediententers—havealonetobekeptin
view，hewaswelladaptedtosucceed;butinthelargersocialfieldheisatfault。Hehadgreatdeductivereadinessandskill
（thoughhislogicalaccuracy，asMr。Sidgwickremarks，hasbeenagooddealexaggerated）。Butinhumanaffairsphenomena
aresocomplex，andprinciplessoconstantlylimitorevencompensateoneanother，thatrapidityanddaringindeductionmay
bethegreatestofdangers，iftheyaredivorcedfromawideandbalancedappreciationoffacts。Dialecticabilityis，nodoubt，
avaluablegift，butthefirstconditionforsuccessinsocialinvestigationistoseethingsastheyare。
AsortofRicardo—mythusforsometimeexistedineconomiccircles。Itcannotbedoubtedthattheexaggeratedestimateof
hismeritsaroseinpartfromasenseofthesupporthissystemgavetothemanufacturersandothercapitalistsintheir
growingantagonismtotheoldaristocracyoflandowners。Thesametendency，aswellashisaffinitytotheirtooabstractand
unhistoricalmodesofthought，andtheireudamonisticdoctrines，recommendedhimtotheBenthamitegroup，andtothe
so—calledPhilosophicalRadicalsgenerally。Broughamsaidheseemedtohavedroppedfromtheskies—asingularavatar，it
mustbeowned。Hisrealservicesinconnectionwithquestionsofcurrencyandbankingnaturallycreatedaprepossessionin
favourofhismoregeneralviews，But，apartfromthosespecialsubjects，itdoesnotappearthat，eitherintheformofsolid
theoreticteachingorofvaluablepracticalguidance，hehasreallydonemuchfortheworld，whilstheadmittedlymisled
opiniononseveralimportantquestions。DeQuincey’spresentationofhimasagreatrevealeroftruthisnowseentobean
extravagance。J。S。Millandothersspeakofhis"superiorlights"ascomparedwiththoseofAdamSmith;buthiswork，asa
contributiontoourknowledgeofhumansociety，willnotbearamoment’scomparisonwiththeWealthofNations。
ItisinterestingtoobservethatMalthus，thoughthecombinationofhisdoctrineofpopulationwiththeprinciplesofRicardo
composedthecreedforsometimeprofessedbyallthe"orthodox"economists，didnothimselfaccepttheRicardianscheme。
Heprophesiedthat"themainpartofthestructurewouldnotstand。""Thetheory，"hesays"，takesapartialviewofthe
subject，likethesystemoftheFrencheconomists;and，likethatsystem，afterhavingdrawnintoitsvortexagreatnumberof
veryclevermen，itwillbeunabletosupportitselfagainstthetestimonyofobviousfacts，andtheweightofthosetheories
which，thoughlesssimpleandcaptivating，aremorejustonaccountoftheirembracingmoreofthecauseswhicharein
actualoperationinalleconomicalresults。"WesawthatthefoundationsofSmith’sdoctrineingeneralphilosophywere
unsound，andtheethicalcharacterofhisschemeinconsequenceinjuriouslyaffected;buthismodeoftreatment，consistingin
thehabitualcombinationofinductionanddeduction，wefoundlittleopentoobjection。Mainlythroughtheinfluenceof
Ricardo，economicmethodwasperverted。Thesciencewasledintothemistakencourseofturningitsbackonobservation，
andseekingtoevolvethelawsofphenomenaoutofafewhastygeneralisationsbyaplayoflogic。Theprincipalviceswhich
havebeeninrecenttimesnotunjustlyattributedtothemembersofthe"orthodox"schoolwereallencouragedbyhis
example，namely，—（1）theviciouslyabstractcharacteroftheconceptionswithwhichtheydeal，（2）theabusivepreponderance
ofdeductionintheirprocessesofresearch，and（3）thetooabsolutewayinwhichtheirconclusionsareconceivedand
enunciated。
TheworksofRicardohavebeencollectedinonevolume，withabiographicalnotice，byJ。R。M’Culloch（1846）。（48）
AfterMalthusandRicardo，thefirstofwhomhadfixedpubiicattentionirresistiblyoncertainaspectsofsociety，andthe
secondhadledeconomicresearchintonew，ifquestionable，paths，cameanumberofminorwriterswhoweremainlytheir
expositorsandcommentators，andwhom，accordingly，theGermans，withallusiontoGreekmythicalhistory，designateas
theEpigoni。BythemthedoctrinesofSmithandhisearliestsuccessorswerethrownintomoresystematicshape，limitedand
guardedsoastobelessopentocriticism，couchedinamoreaccurateterminology，modifiedinsubordinateparticulars，or
appliedtothesolutionofthepracticalquestionsoftheirday。
JamesMill’sElements（1821）deservesspecialnotice，asexhibitingthesystemofRicardowiththoroughgoingrigour，and
withacompactnessofpresentation，andaskillinthedispositionofmaterials，whichgivetoitinsomedegreethecharacter
ofaworkofart。Theaprioripoliticaleconomyisherereducedtoitssimplestexpression。J。R。M’Culloch—（1779—1864），
authorofanumberoflaboriousstatisticalandothercompilations，criticisedcurrenteconomiclegislationintheEdinburgh
ReviewfromthepointofviewoftheRicardiandoctrine，takingupsubstantiallythesametheoreticpositionaswasoccupied
atasomewhatlaterperiodbytheManchesterschool。Heisaltogetherwithoutoriginality，andneverexhibitsanyphilosophic
elevationorbreadth。Hisconfidentdogmatismisoftenrepellent;headmittedinhislateryearsthathehadbeentoofondof
novelopinions，anddefendedthemwithmoreheatandpertinacitythantheydeserved。Itisnoticeablethat，thoughoften
spokenofinhisowntimebothbythosewhoagreedwithhisviews，andthose，likeSismondi，whodifferedfromthem，as
oneofthelightsofthereigningschool，hisnameisnowtacitlydroppedinthewritingsofthemembersofthatschool。
Whatevermayhavebeenhispartialusefulnessinvindicatingthepolicyoffreetrade，itisatleastplainthatfortheneedsof
oursocialfuturehehasnothingtooffer。NassauWilliamSenior（1790—1864），whowasprofessorofpoliticaleconomyinthe
universityofOxford，published，besidesanumberofseparatelectures，atreatiseonthescience，whichfirstappearedasan
articleintheEnclyopaediaMetropolitana。Heisawriterofahighorderofmerit。Hemadeconsiderablecontributionstotheelucidation
ofeconomicprinciples，speciallystudyingexactnessinnomenclatureandstrictaccuracyindeduction。Hisexplanationson
costofproductionandthewayinwhichitaffectsprice，onrent，onthedifferencebetweenrateofwagesandpriceof
labour，ontherelationbetweenprofitandwages（withspecialreferencetoRicardo’stheoremonthissubject，whichhe
correctsbythesubstitutionofproportionalforabsoluteamount），andonthedistributionofthepreciousmetalsbetween
differentcountries，areparticularlyvaluable。Hisnewterm"abstinence，"inventedtoexpresstheconductforwhichinterestis
theremuneration，wasuseful，thoughnotquiteappropriate，becausenegativeinmeaning。Itisonthetheoryofwagesthat
Seniorisleastsatisfactory。Hemakestheaveragerateinacountry（which，wemustmaintain，isnotarealquantity，though
therateinagivenemploymentandneighbourhoodis）tobeexpressedbythefractionofwhichthenumeratoristheamount
ofthewagesfund（anunascertainableandindeed，exceptasactualtotalofwagespaid，imaginarysum）andthedenominator
thenumberoftheworkingpopulation;andfromthisheproceedstodrawthemostimportantandfar—reaching
consequences，thoughtheequationonwhichhefoundshisinferencesconveysatmostonlyanarithmeticalfact，which
wouldbetrueofeverycaseofadivisionamongstindividuals，andcontainsnoeconomicelementwhatever。Thephrase
"wagesfund"originatedinsomeexpressionsofAdamSmith（49）usedonlyforthepurposeofillustration，andneverintended
toberigorouslyinterpreted;andweshallseethatthedoctrinehasbeenrepudiatedbyseveralmembersofwhatisregarded
astheorthodoxschoolofpoliticaleconomy。Asregardsmethod，Seniormakesthescienceapurelydeductiveone，inwhich
thereisnoroomforanyother"facts"thanthefourfundamentalpropositionsfromwhichheundertakestodeduceall
economictruth。Andhedoesnotregardhimselfasarrivingathypotheticconclusions;hispostulatesandhisinferencesare
alikeconceivedascorrespondingtoactualphenomena。（50）ColonelRobertTorrens（1780—1864）wasaprolificwriter，partly
oneconomictheory，butprincipallyonitsapplicationstofinancialandcommercialpolicy。Almostthewholeofthe
programmewhichwascarriedoutinlegislationbySirRobertPeelhadbeenlaiddowninprincipleinthewritingsof
Torrens。HegavesubstantiallythesametheoryofforeigntradewhichwasafterwardsstatedbyJ。S。MillinoneofhisEssaysonUnsettledQuestions。（51）Hewasanearlyandearnestadvocateoftherepealofthecornlaws，butwasnotin
favourofageneralsystemofabsolutefreetrade，maintainingthatitisexpedienttoimposeretaliatorydutiestocountervail
similardutiesimposedbyforeigncountries，andthataloweringofimportdutiesontheproductionsofcountriesretaining
theirhostiletariffswouldoccasionanabstractionofthepreciousmetals，andadeclineinprices，profits，andwages。