At the termination of the war, when part of my revenue reverts to me, and is employed as before in the purchase of wine,furniture, or other luxuries, the population which it before supported, and which the war called into existence, will becomeredundant, and by its effect on the rest of the population, and its competition with it for employment, will sink the value ofwages, and very materially deteriorate the condition of the labouring classes.' (4)(4. Principles, etc., p. 475.)Mr. Ricardo's .theory is, that it is more beneficial to the labouring classes to be employed in the production of services thanin the production of commodities; that it is better for them to be employed in standing behind chairs than in making chairs;as soldiers or sailors than as manufacturers. Now as it is clear that the whole quantity of commodities provided for the useof labourers is not increased by the conversion of an artisan into a footman or a soldier, either Mr. Ricardo must be wrong,or my elementary proposition is false.
Mr. Ricardo seems to have been led to his conclusions by observing that the wages of servants, sailors, and soldiers areprincipally paid in kind--those of artisans in money. He correctly states, that if a man with 10,000 l. a-year spends hisincome in the purchase of commodities for his own use, he retains, after having made those purchases, no further fund forthe maintenance of labour; but that if he spends it in the purchase of commodities to be employed in maintaining menialservants, he has, in those purchased commodities, a new fund with which he can maintain a certain number of menialservants. It appeared to him, therefore, that the landlord would, in the latter case, be able to spend his income twice over;to subsist twice as many .persons as before. It did not occur to him that the landlord, by purchasing himself the subsistenceof his servants, merely does for them what they would be able to do better .for themselves; that, instead of spending hisown income twice over, he merely takes on himself the business of spending theirs for them; (5)(5. He did not perceive that all that the landlord spends in purchasing the subsistence and clothing of his servants is so muchdeducted from what he would otherwise have to pay them in money.) and that if he were to give tohis servants the value of their whole subsistence in money, the whole body of labourers would be just as well maintained asin the supposed case of his purchasing their subsistence, and then giving it to them in exchange for their services. No onewould maintain that if it were the practice, in this country, as it is in India, to give to servants board wages, the demand forlabour would be lessened; or that if it were the practice, as it is in semi-barbarous countries, to maintain servants toproduce within their masters walls the commodities which we are accustomed to purchase from shops, the demand forlabour would be increased. Still less could it be. maintained, that if those servants, instead of producing commodities, wereemployed in following their master's person, or mounting guard before his door, such a change would create an additionaldemand for men, and be favourable to an increase of population.
