"OnLabour，itsWrongfulClaimsandRightfulDues，itsActualPresentandPossibleFuture"ByWilliamThomasThornton，PartI，FortnightlyReview，（May，1869），pp。505—18;PartII，（June，1869），pp。680—700。
republishedinDebatesandDissertation（1875），25—85。
PARTI
Mr。Thorntonlongagogaveproofofhiscompetencytothetreatmentofsomeofthemostimportantquestionsofpracticalpoliticaleconomy，bytwoworksofgreatmerit，"OverPopulationanditsRemedy，"（1）and"APleaforPeasantProprietors。"（2）Ofthelatteroftheseespeciallyitmaybesaid，thatnothingbutthetotalabsence，atthetimeofitspublication，ofanygeneralinterestinitssubject，canaccountforitsnothavingachievedahighreputeandawidecirculation。Thelackofinterestinthesubjecthasnowceased;
opinionisrapidlyadvancinginthedirectionwhichtheauthorfayours;
andanewedition，withitsfactsbroughtdowntothelatestdate，wouldbewelcomedbyadvancedpoliticians，andwouldmateriallycontributetotheformationofanenlightenedjudgmentononeoftheeconomicalquestionsonwhichtruthismostimportant，andprejudicestillmostrife。
Thepresentwork，thoughpopularandattractiveinstyle，isstrictlyscientificinitsprinciplesandreasonings;andistherefore，asmightbeexpected，strictlyimpartialinitsjudgments。Aconsiderablepartofthevolumeisemployedinrefutingtheprinciplesonwhichitisusualtorestthoseclaimsandaspirationsofthelabouringclasses，whichneverthelesstheauthor，onbettergrounds，supports。Noblindpartisanoneithersideofthefeudoflabouragainstcapital，willrelishthebook;butfewpersonsofintelligenceandimpartialitywhoreaditthrough，willlayitdownwithouthavingreasontofeelthattheyunderstandbetterthanbeforesomeofthebearingsofthequestionsinvolvedinthatconflict。
Tothisgreatpracticalmeritaretobeaddedtwoofamoretheoretickind，tothevalueofwhichIamthemorecalledupontobeartestimony，asontheparticularpointstoucheduponinthisdepartmentIshallhavetoexpressmoredifferencethanagreement。First:itcontainsadiscussionofoneofthefundamentalquestionsofabstractpoliticaleconomy（theinfluenceofdemandandsupplyonprice），whichisarealcontributiontoscience，though，inmyestimation，anaddition，andnot，astheauthorthinks，acorrection，tothereceiveddoctrine。Secondly:intheattempttogototheverybottomofthequestion，whatarethejustrightsoflabourononeside，andcapitalontheother，itraisesthegreatissuesrespectingthefoundationofrightandwrong，ofjusticeandinjustice，inamannerhighlyprovocativeofthought。Tolaydownadefinitedoctrineofsocialjustice，aswellasadistinctviewofthenaturallawsoftheexchangeofcommodities，asthebasisforthedeductionsofaworkdevotedtosuchasubjectastheprinciplesandpracticeofTrades—Unionism，wasinseparablefromthethoroughnesswithwhichtheauthorhassoughttodohiswork。
Everyopinionastotherelativerightsoflabourersandemployers，involvesexpresslyortacitlysometheoryofjustice，anditcannotbeindifferenttoknowwhattheory。Neither，again，canitbedecidedinwhatmannerthecombinedproceedingsoflabourersorofemployersaffecttheinterestsofeitherside，withoutaclearviewofthecauseswhichgovernthebargainbetweenthem——withoutasoundtheoryofthelawofwages。
Indeed，atheoryofwagesobtrusivelymeetstheinquirer，atthethresholdofeveryquestionrespectingtherelationsbetweenlabourersandemployers，andiscommonlyregardedasrenderingsuperfluousanyfurtherargument。
Itislaiddownthatwages，byanirresistiblelaw，dependonthedemandandsupplyoflabour，andcaninnocircumstancesbeeithermoreorlessthanwhatwilldistributetheexistingwages—fundamongtheexistingnumberofcompetitorsforemployment。Thosewhoarecontenttosetoutfromgenerally—receiveddoctrinesasfromself—evidentaxioms，aresatisfiedwiththis，andinquirenofurther。Butthosewhousetheirownunderstanding，andlookcloselyintowhattheyassentto，areboundtoaskthemselveswhetherorinwhatsensewagesdodependonthedemandandsupplyoflabour，andwhatismeantbythewages—fund。
Theauthorofthisworkhasaskedhimselfthesequestions;andwhileheis，ashiswritingsgiveevidence，wellversedinpoliticaleconomy，andisabletoholdhisgroundwiththebestinfollowingouteconomicallawsintotheirmoreobscureandintricateworkings，hehasbecomeconvincedthatthebarrierwhichseemstoclosetheentranceintooneofthemostimportantprovincesofeconomicalandsocialinquiry，isashadowwhichwillvanishifwegoboldlyuptoit。Heisofopinionthateconomistshavemistakenthescientificlawnotonlyofthepriceoflabour，butofpricesingeneral。Itisanerror，hethinks，thatprice，orvalueinexchange，dependsonsupplyanddemand。
Thereisonesense，inwhichthispropositionofMr。Thorntonwouldbeassentedtobyalleconomists;theynoneofthemconsidersupplyanddemandtobetheultimateregulatorsofvalue。（3）Thatcharacter，theyhold，belongstocostofproduction;alwayssupposingthecommoditytobeaproductoflabour，andnaturalorartificialmonopolytobeoutofthequestion。Subjecttotheseconditions，allcommodities，inthelongrunandontheaverage，tendtoexchangeforoneanother（and，thoughthispointisalittlemoreintricate，tendalsotoexchangeformoney）intheratioofwhatitcosts，inlabourandabstinence，toproducethearticlesandtobringthemtotheplaceofsale。Butthoughtheaveragepriceofeverything，thepricetowhichtheproducerlooksforwardforhisremuneration，mustapproximatelyconformtothecostofproduction，itisnotsowiththepriceatanygivenmoment。Thatisalwaysheldtodependonthedemandandsupplyatthemoment。Andtheinfluenceevenofcostofproductiondependsonsupply;fortheonlythingwhichcompelsprice，ontheaverage，toconformtocostofproduction，isthatifthepriceiseitheraboveorbelowthatstandard，itisbroughtbacktoiteitherbyanincreaseorbyadiminutionofthesupply;though，afterthishasbeeneffected，thesupplyadjustsitselftothedemandwhichexistsforthecommodityattheremuneratingprice。Thesearethelimitswithinwhichpoliticaleconomistsconsidersupplyanddemandasthearbitersofprice。ButevenwithintheselimitsMr。Thorntondeniesthedoctrine。
Likeallfaircontroversialists，Mr。Thorntondirectshisattackagainstthestrongestformoftheopinionheassails。Hedoesnotmuchconcernhimselfwiththeinfantineformofthetheory，inwhichdemandisdefinedasadesireforthecommodity，orasthedesirecombinedwiththepowerofpurchase;orinwhichpriceissupposedtodependontheratiobetweendemandandsupply。Itistobehopedthatfewarenowdwellinginthislimbusinfantum。Demand，tobecapableofcomparisonwithsupply，mustbetakentomean，notawish，norapower，butaquantity。Neitherisitatanytimeafixedquantity，butvarieswiththeprice。Nordoesthepricedependonanyratio。Thedemandandsupplytheory，whenrightlyunderstood——indeedwhencapableofbeingunderstoodatall——signifies，thattheratiowhichexistsbetweendemandandsupply，whenthepricehasadjusteditself，isalwaysoneofequality。Ifatthemarketpricethedemandexceedsthesupply，thecompetitionofbuyerswilldriveupthepricetothepointatwhichtherewillonlybepurchasersforasmuchasisofferedforsale。If，onthecontrary，thesupply，beinginexcessofthedemand，cannotbealldisposedofattheexistingprice，eitherapartwillbewithdrawntowaitforabettermarket，orasalewillbeforcedbyofferingitatsuchareductionofpriceaswinbringforwardnewbuyers，ortempttheoldonestoincreasetheirpurchases。Thelaw，therefore，ofvalues，asaffectedbydemandandsupply，isthattheyadjustthemselvessoasalwaystobringaboutanequationbetweendemandandsupply，bytheincreaseoftheoneorthediminutionoftheother;themovementofpricebeingonlyarrestedwhenthequantityaskedforatthecurrentprice，andthequantityofferedatthecurrentprice，areequal。Thispointofexactequilibriummaybeasmomentary，butisneverthelessasreal，asthelevelofthesea。
ItisthisdoctrinewhichMr。Thorntoncontests:andhismodeofcornbatingitisbyadducingcaseaftercaseinwhichhethinkshecanshowthatthepropositionisfalse;mostofthecasesbeing，onthefaceofthem，altogetherexceptional;butamongthemtheycover，inhisopinion，nearlythewholefieldofpossiblecases。
Thefirstcase，whichispresentedasthetypeofaclass，ratherthanforitsintrinsicimportance，isthatofwhatiscalledaDutchauction。
Whenaherringormackerelboathasdischargedonthebeach，atHastingsorDover，lastnight’stakeoffish，theboatmen，inordertodisposeoftheircargo，commonlyresorttoaprocesscalledDutchauction。Thefisharedividedintolots，eachofwhichissetupatahigherpricethanthesalesmanexpectstogetforit，andhethengraduallylowershisterms，untilhecomestoapricewhichsomebystanderiswillingtopayratherthannothavethelot，andtowhichheaccordinglyagrees。Supposeononeoccasionthelottohavebeenahundredweight，andthepriceagreedtotwentyshillings。If，onthesameoccasion，insteadoftheDutchformofauction，theordinaryEnglishmodehadbeenadopted，theresultmighthavebeendifferent。Theoperationwouldthenhavecommencedbysomebystandermakingabid，whichothersmighthavesuccessivelyexceeded，untilapricewasarrivedatbeyondwhichnoonebuttheactualbiddercouldaffordorwasdisposedtogo。Thatsumwouldnotnecessarilybetwentyshillings;
verypossiblyitmightbeonlyeighteenshillings。Thepersonwhowaspreparedtopaytheformerpricemightverypossiblybetheonlypersonpresentpreparedtopayevensomuchasthelatterprice;andifso，hemightgetbyEnglishauctionforeighteenshillingsthefishforwhichatDutchauctionhewouldhavepaidtwentyshillings。Inthesamemarket，withthesamequantityoffishforsale，andwithcustomersinnumberandeveryotherrespectthesame，thesamelotoffishmightfetchtwoverydifferentprices。
（Thornton，pp。47—8。）
Thisinstance，thoughseeminglyatrivial，isreallyarepresentativeoneandahundredcasescouldnotshow，betterthanthisdoes，whatMr。
Thorntonhasandwhathehasnotmadeout。Hehasprovedthatthelawoftheequalisationofsupplyanddemandisnotthewholetheoryoftheparticularcase。Hehasnotprovedthatthelawisnotstrictlyconformedtointhatcase。Inordertoshowthattheequilisationofsupplyanddemandisnotthelawofprice，whathehasreallyshownisthatthelawis，inthisparticularcase，consistentwithtwodifferentprices，andisequallyandcompletelyfulfilledbyeitherofthem。Thedemandandsupplyareequalattwentyshillings，andequalalsoateighteenshillings。Theconclusionoughttobe，notthatthelawisfalse，forMr。Thorntondoesnotdenythatinthecaseinquestionitisfulfilled;butonly，thatitisnottheentirelawofthephenomenon。Thephenomenoncannothelpobeyingit，butthereissomeamountofindeterminatenessinitsoperation——acertainlimitedextentofvariationispossiblewithintheboundsofthelaw;andastheremustbeasufficientreasonforeveryvariationinaneffect，theremustbeasupplementarylaw，whichdeterminestheeffect，betweenthelimitswithinwhichtheprincipallawleavesitfree。Whoevercanteachusthissupplementarylaw，makesavaluableadditiontothescientifictheoryofthesubject;andweshallseepresentlythatinsubstance，ifnotstrictlyinform，Mr。Thorntondoesteachit。Evenifhedidnot，hewouldhaveshownthereceivedtheorytobeincomplete;buthewouldnothave，norhashenow，shownittobeinthesmallestdegreeincorrect。
Whatismore;whenwelookintotheconditionsrequiredtomakethecommontheoryinadequate，wefindthat，inthecaseatleastwhichwehavenowexamined，theincompletenessitstandsconvictedofamountstoanexceedinglysmallmatter。Toestablishit，Mr。Thorntonhadtoassumethatthecustomerwhowaspreparedtopaytwentyshillingsforahundredweightoffish，wastheonlypersonpresentwhowaswillingtopayevensomuchaseighteenshillings。Inotherwords，hesupposedthecasetobeanexceptiontotherule，thatdemandincreaseswithcheapness:andsincethisrule，thoughgeneral，isnotabsolutelyuniversal，heisscientificallyright。Ifthereisapartofthescalethroughwhichthepricemayvarywithoutincreasingordiminishingthedemand，thewholeofthatportionofthescalemayfulfiltheconditionofequalitybetweensupplyanddemand。Buthowmanysuchcasesreallyexist？Amongafewchafferersonthebeachofasmallfishingport，suchacase，thougheventhereimprobable，isnottotallyoutofthequestion。Butwherebuyersarecountedbythousands，orhundreds，orevenscores;inanyconsiderablemarket——and，farmore，inthegeneralmarketoftheworld——itisthenextthingtoimpossiblethatmoreofthecommodityshouldnotbeaskedforateveryreductionofprice。Thecaseofprice，therefore，whichthelawoftheequalisationdoesnotreach，isonewhichmaybeconceived，butwhich，inpractice，ishardlyeverrealised。
ThenextexamplewhichMr。Thorntonproducesofthefailureofsupplyanddemandasthelawofprice，isthefollowing:——
Supposetwopersonsatdifferenttimes，orindifferentplaces，tohaveeachahorsetosell，valuedbytheownerat£50;andthatintheonecasetherearetwo，andintheotherthreepersons，ofwhomeveryoneisreadytopayo650forthehorse，thoughnooneofthemcanaffordtopaymore。Inbothcasessupplyisthesame，viz。，onehorseat£50;
butdemandisdifferent，beinginonecasetwo，andintheotherthree，horsesat£50。Yetthepriceatwhichthehorseswillbesoldwillbethesameinbothcases，viz。，£50。（p。49。）
Thelawdoesfailinthiscase，asitfailedintheformer，butforadifferentreason;not，asintheformercase，becauseseveralpricesfulfiltheconditionequallywell，butbecausenopricefulfilsit。At£50thereisademandfortwiceorthreetimesthesupply;at£50。
0s。0¼d。thereisnodemandatall。Whenthescaleofthedemandforacommodityisbrokenbysoextraordinaryajump，thelawfailsofitsapplication;not，Iventuretosay，fromanyfaultinthelaw，butbecausetheconditionsonwhichitsapplicabilitydependsdonotexist。
Ifthepeculiaritiesofthecasedonotpermitthedemandtobeequaltothesupply，leavingitonlythealternativeofbeinggreaterorless，greaterorlessitwillbe;andallthatcanbeaffirmedis，thatitwillkeepasneartothepointofequalityasitcan。Insteadofconflictingwiththelaw，thisistheextremecasewhichprovesthelaw。Thelawis，thatthepricewillbethatwhichequalisesthedemandwiththesupply;andtheexampleprovesthatthisonlyfailstobethecasewhenthereisnopricethatwouldfulfilthecondition，andthateventhen，thesamecauses，stilloperating，keepthepriceatthepointwhichwillmostnearlyfulfilit。Isitpossibletohaveanymorecompleteconfirmationofthelaw，thanthatinordertofindacaseinwhichthepricedoesnotconformtothelaw，itisnecessarytofindoneinwhichthereisnopricethatcanconformtoit？
Again:——
Whenatradesmanhasplaceduponhisgoodsthehighestpricewhichanyonewillpayforthem，thepricecannot，ofcourse，risehigher，yetthesupplymaybebelowthedemand。Agloverinacountrytown，ontheeveofanassizebail，havingonlyadozenpairsofwhiteglovesinstore，mightpossiblybeabletogettenshillingsapairforthem。Hewouldbeabletogetthisiftwelvepersonswerewillingtopaythatpriceratherthannotgotothebail，orthangoungloved。Buthecouldnotgetmorethanthis，eventhough，whilehewasstillhigglingwithhisfirstbatchofcustomers，asecondbatch，equallynumerousandneithermorenorlesseager，shouldenterhisshop，andoffertopaythesamebutnotahigherprice。Thedemandforgloves，whichatfirsthadbeenjustequaltothesupply，wouldnowbeexactlydoubled，yetthepricewouldnotriseabovetenshillingsapair。Suchabundanceofproofissurelydecisiveagainstthesuppositionthatpricemustrisewhendemandexceedssupply。（pp。51—2。）
Here，again，theauthorisobligedtosupposethatthewholebodyofcustomers（twenty—fourinnumber）placetheextremelimitofwhattheyarewillingtopayratherthangowithoutthearticle，exactlyatthesamepoint——anexactrepetitionofthehypothesisaboutthehorsewhoisestimatedat£50，andnotafarthingmore，byeveryonewhoiswillingtobuyhim。Thecaseisjustpossibleinaverysmallmarket——practicallyimpossibleinthegreatmarketofthecommunity。But，wereiteversofrequent，itwouldnotimpugnthetruthofthelaw，butonlyitsall—comprehensiveness。
Itwouldshowthatthelawisonlyfulfilledwhenitsfulfilmentis，inthenatureofthings，possible，andthattherearecasesinwhichitisimpossible;butthateventherethelawtakeseffect，uptothelimitofpossibility。
Mr。Thornton’snextpositionis，thatiftheequalisationtheorywereliterallytrue，itwouldbeatruthofsmallsignificance，because——
Evenifitweretruethatthepriceultimatelyresultingfromcompetitionisalwaysoneatwhichsupplyanddemandareequalised，stillonlyasmallproportionofthegoodsofferedforsalewouldactuallybesoldatanysuchprice，sinceadealerwilldisposeofasmuchofhisstockashecanatahigherprice，beforehewilllowerthepriceinordertogetridoftheremainder。（p。53。）
Thisisonlysayingthatthelawinquestionresemblesothereconomicallawsinproducingitseffectsnotsuddenly，butgradually。Thoughadealermaykeepuphispriceuntilbuyersactuallyfalloff，oruntilheismetbythecompetitionofrivaldealers，stillifthereisalargersupplyinthemarketthancanbesoldontheseterms，hispricewillgodownuntilitreachesthepointwhichwillcallforthbuyersforhisentirestock;
andwhenthatpointisreacheditwillnotdescendfurther。Alawwhichdeterminesthatthepriceofthecommodityshallfall，andfixestheexactpointwhichthefallwillreach，isnotjustlydescribedas"atruthofsmallsignificance"merelybecausethedealers，notbeingdeadmatter，butvoluntaryagents，mayresistforatimetheforcetowhichtheyatlastsuccumb。Limitationssuchastheseaffectalleconomicallaws，butareneverconsideredtodestroytheirvalue。Aswellmightitbecalledaninsignificanttruththatthereisamarketpriceofacommodity，becauseacustomerwhoisignorant，orinahurry，maypaytwiceasmuchforthethingashecouldgetitforatanothershopafewdoorsfartheroff。