HKB
MY DEAR SIR,
By facility of production I do not mean to consider the productiveness of the soil only, but the skill, machinery, and labour joined to the natural fertility of the earth. It does not therefore follow that because Otaheite[112] has an abundance of fertile land profits should be there at the highest rate, because the skill and the means of abridging labour may in Europe more than compensate this natural advantage of Otaheite. The question is this: If part of the skill and capital of England were employed in Otaheite to produce 100,000 quarters of corn, would not the persons employing that capital obtain greater profits in Otaheite than they would if they employed the same capital for the same purpose here, and would not rent be lower there than here? You must at any rate allow that the quantity of corn produced with a given quantity of capital, supposing the same skill to be employed, must be greater there than here, or there is no meaning in fertility of soil. You must allow too that in proportion to the fertility of Otaheite and to its extent compared with the population will be the lowness of rent, notwithstanding its abundant rate of produce. I can easily conceive that, with the imperfect tillage the people of Otaheite now give their land, the population may be just sufficiently numerous to require that the whole of their lands should be in cultivation, and consequently that they should bear a rent; but let a hundred Europeans only join them with our improved machinery and perfectly skilled in husbandry, and the immediate consequence would be that three quarters of their lands would for a time become perfectly useless to them, as the quarter might produce them more food than all the inhabitants could possibly consume. Now I ask whether it be possible that three quarters of the land of a country can be suffered to pass from a state of tillage to a state of nature without occasioning a fall in rents? If land is less in demand, must not the rent of it fall? If you say no, there is no truth in the proposition that value depends upon the proportion between supply and demand. Now suppose England in the state in which I have been fancying Otaheite; and she is actually in that state, all or most of her land being in cultivation; and suppose further that there is another country totally unknown to us whose skill and machinery in husbandry as far surpasses ours as ours does that of the Otaheiteans. If a hundred of these persons were to come amongst us with their capital, skill, etc., would not the same consequences follow as I have just stated? Now every improvement in machinery is precisely on a small scale what I have been here supposing on a large scale; and I am quite astonished that you should yet maintain that 'universally where land is limited in quantity, the facility of production upon it will go mainly to rent, and the soil of a country might be of such fertility as to yield sixtyfold instead of eight or ten, and yet the profits of stock be only six per cent. and the wages of labour both nominally and really low.' Land, like everything else, rises or falls in proportion to the demand for it; every improvement which shall enable you to raise the same quantity of produce on a less quantity of land or, which is the same thing, a larger quantity of produce on the same quantity of land cannot increase the demand for land and therefore cannot raise rents.