I have thought it necessary to state this possible evil as a part of the theory of machinery, but I am far from attaching anypractical importance to it. I do not believe that there exists upon record a single instance in which the whole annualproduce has been diminished by the use of inanimate machinery. Partly in consequence of the expense of constructing thegreater part of machinery being defrayed out of profits or rent, and partly in consequence of the great proportion which theproductive powers of machinery bear to the expense of its construction, its use is uniformly accompanied by an enormousincrease of production. The annual consumption of cotton wool in this country, before the introduction of the spinningjenny, did not amount to 100,000 lbs.; it now amounts to 190,000,000. Since the power-loom came into use, the quantityof cotton cloth manufactured for home consumption has increased from 227,000,000 of yards (the average annual amountbetween the years 1816 and 1820), to 400,000,000 of yards (the annual average from 1824 to 1828 (Huskisson's Speech,1830). The number of copies of books extant at any one period before the invention .of the printing-press, was probablysmaller than that which is now produced in a single day. Mr. Ricardo's proposition, therefore (Princ. 474), that the use ofmachinery frequently diminishes the quantity of the gross produce of a country, is. erroneous, so far as it depends on thecase which he has supposed, and of which I have stated the substance.
The other exception, that where the machine itself consumes commodities which would otherwise have been consumed bylabourers, and that to a greater extent than it produces them, applies only to the case of horses and working cattle, whichmay be termed animated machines. We will suppose a farmer to employ on his farm twenty men, who produce annuallytheir own subsistence, and that of six other men producing commodities for the use of their master. if five horses,consuming, we will say, as much as eight men, could do the work of ten, it would be worth the farmer's while to substitutethem for eight of his men, as he would be able to increase the number of persons who work for his own benefit from six toeight. But after deducting the subsistence of the horses, the fund for the maintenance of labourers would be reduced fromwages for twenty-six men to wages for eighteen. I cannot refuse to admit that such cases may exist, or to deplore themisery that must accompany them. They are, in fact, now occurring in Ireland, and are occasioning much of the distress ofthat country. They seem, indeed, to be the natural accompaniments of a certain period in the progress of nationalimprovement. In the early stages of society, the rank and even the safety of the landed proprietor is principally determinedby the number of his dependents. The best mode of increasing that number is to allow the land, which he does not occupyas his own demesne, to be subdivided into small tenements, each cultivated by one family, and just sufficient for theirsupport. Such tenants can of course pay little rent, but they arc enabled by their abundant leisure, and forced by theirabsolute dependence, to swell the retinue, and aid the political influence, of their landlord in peace, and to follow his bannerin public and private war. Cameron of Lochiel, whose rental did not exceed 500 l. a year, carried with him into the rebellionof 1745, eight hundred men raised from his own tenantry. But in the progress of civilization, as wealth becomes theprincipal means of distinction and influence, landowners prefer rent to dependents. To obtain rent, that. process ofcultivation must be employed which will give, not absolutely the greatest amount of produce, but the greatest afterdeducting the expenses. For this purpose a tract of five hundred acres, from which fifty families produced their ownsubsistence, and produced scarcely anything more, may be converted into one farm, and with the labour of ten families, andas many horses, may produce the subsistence of only thirty families. Fortunately, however, the period at which thesealterations take place is generally one of great social improvement; so that, after a short interval, the increased diligenceand skill with which labour is applied, occasion an increase of even the gross produce. The fund for the maintenance oflabourers now becomes increased from two different sources -- partly from the increased efficiency of human labour. whenaided by that of horses and cattle, and partly from the results of a part of the human labour set free by the substitution ofbrutes. The ultimate consequences of such a change are always beneficial; the change. itself must, in general, beaccompanied by distress.
But with the exception of these two cases, one of which produces only temporary effects, and the other, though:apparently .possible, seem never actually to occur, it. appears to me dear that the use. of machinery must either rase thegeneral rate of wages, or leave it unaltered.
