{London,] 23 January 1855 
28 Dean Street, Soho 

Dear Lassalle, 

This letter would have been written a week ago had not my wife 
been delivered of a world citizen (female)* and the consequent 
trouble left me little spare time, as you can readily imagine. 
However, both mother and daughter are doing well. 

It is not very pleasant, mon cher,” to write in such a small [...] au 
fond, all one can do is produce miniature dunghills. Mais 
[n ‘importe]" that the [...] should consider [...] and make no literary 
pretensions, while also hoping that none will be made. 

As regards the various economic questions you put to me,°'” so 
far as I know there are as yet no compilations, whether official or 
scientific. Official figures for corn imports are, of course, to be 
found in the Boarp or Trape tastes. But nothing else. Undoubtedly 
there will now be a plethora of works on these matters. A period 
of crisis in England is also one of theoretical research. I shall at 
the earliest opportunity compile something for you from my 
note-books, in which I have collected all sorts of statistical 
information from various sources.°'* For the present, merely the 
following, of a quite general nature: 

Imports of Wheat and Flour 

Wheat as wheat Flour 
(quarters) (reduced to quarters) 
1847 Lo. 2,650,000 1,808,000 
1848 oo 1,865,000 351,000 
1849 oo... 4,569,000 1,129,000 
1850 oe 3,778,000 1,102,000 

Thus 8,285,000 [qrs] of wheat imported during the first 2 years 
of Free TRADE, and 2,226,000 in the form of flour, in all 10,511,000, 
or an average of more than 5 million quarters over the 2 years. 
This amounts to far more than 1/6 of total consumption, reckoned 
at 1 quarter per person per year. 

4 Eleanor - > my dear fellow - © at bottom - 4 But no matter 

18* 

Now, can it be said that annual consumption increased to that 
extent? This clearly depends on the answer to another question: 
whether the same amount of wheat was produced in England as 
heretofore? This again can only be answered when we are in 
possession of the agricultural statistics, upon which work has only 
just begun. As regards Ireland and Scotland, we know that 
considerable amounts [of the la]nd have been turned over to 
pasture, etc., since the abolition of the corn tariffs.” [As regards 
England, no conclusion can be reached at present save by 
induction. If in England, a considerable area of Jand had not been 
withdrawn from cultivation, how came it that e.g. this year, despite 
a very good harvest, corn prices are higher than in the 
protectionist year, 1839, for instance, although the loss of imports 
from abroad in no way compensates for the difference between a 
good and a bad harvest, between, say, that of 1854 and that of 
1853? How the tendency to withdraw land from cultivation has 
spread under Free Trade— mainly, no doubt, by turning it over to 
pasture—is evident from the following table, an official one (for 
Ireland): 

1854 (up till November) 

Acres 
[Decrease in Ce} reals ......eseccccccesccesesseessesnececeessaeseseasseesseseseesees 91,233 
[Green Crops] ([Pot]atoes, roots €tC.) ccs esscessscestsceseeeseseeues 710 
TAN coast ev saute cedtegpencssapeyas neh ies Coed, obcbehan Cabevededs digit state vetoes lesadeeses 23,607 
ClO er asec sstegthyecieavaGiaeste igh sav echt ap yede dn catehes et oukcah ciao ease sects 13,025 
Total decrease in cultivated land 128,575 

Last year (1853), on the other hand, the total decrease was only 
43,867 acres. Making, for both years taken together, 172,442. This 
is all the more striking as the demand for all agricultural produce 
has risen in the past 2 years. 

Now as regards the ‘Hanns’ employed in agriculture, we know 
that, of the 300,000 people who have emigrated every year from 
Great Britain since 1852, the great majority consisted of agricul- 
tural workers. We know that in 1853 the population decreased for 
the first time instead of increasing. Finally, the best proof that the 
number of agricultural Hanns has greatly decreased is that in 1853 
wages in rural areas rose for the first time since 1815 and that 
mechanical reapers were more or less generally introduced in 
order to depress them again. 

(Incidentally, I would point out that the free import of foreign 
corn has given England’s agronomy a tre[men]dous impetus.) 

What [influence] Free Trade—E has had on the price of industrial 
{products] is absolutely impossible to assess from the material so 
far available. In the woollen and linen industry, for example, the 
fluctuations dependent on raw material can hardly have been 
affected in any way by the repeat of the Corn Laws. On the whole I 
believe that the history of prices from 1849 to 1854 will show that 
the price-relations between all manufactured products and grain, 
as well as between individual branches of industry and the 
corresponding raw materials remained the same before and after 
the repeal of the Corn Laws (likewise the variations within each 
group). 

As for wages in the factories (figures another time), it can be 
proved beyond doubt that the repeal of the Corn Laws, 1. has had 
no influence whatever on absolute wages, 2. has contributed to 
depress relat[ive] wages. In the year of crisis* wages [had] been 
depressed. They were not raised in the relatively good years 
1849-52 (the latter included, at least up to the last 1/3 of the year). 
Why weren’t they raised? Because the price of foodstuffs had 
fallen. In the course of 1852 the great emigration began, while on 
the other hand demand rose appreciably in the United States, 
Australia, India, etc. The workers then demanded a 10 per cent 
rise in wages and for a short time, while prosperity was at its 
height (until about August 1853), were able to achieve it in almost the 
majority of branches of industry. However, as you know, they were 
soon deprived of this 10 per cent rise—remember, e.g., the Preston 
strike *!—although corn prices were on average higher in 1853 and 
1854 than in the protectionist years 1843-45 and 1830-37. Hence the 
rise in wages—a very temporary rise, for already short time is being 
worked again and, generally speaking, the crisis has begun—is in no 
way attributable to rree rrave, but corresponds wholly to the rise that 
takes place in all years of prosperity. In fact rree Trade simply meant 
that from 1849 to 1852 wages did not rise. Since it was possible to buy 
more food with the same wages, these were not increased. What did 
show a relative increase, therefore, was profits. Hence relative wages, 
i.e. wages in relation to profits, have in fact fallen—a result which 
I showed to be inevitable in a pamphlet? (Frencn) written as long 
ago as 1847. 

Of course, one cannot deny that the repeal of the Corn Laws 
may have in some degree contributed (together with the adjust- 

2 1847 - 5 K. Marx, ‘Speech on the Question of Free Trade’. 

ment of the sugar tax, the raising of restrictions on shipping and 
the repeal of the protective tariffs on British North American 
timber) to creating new, or enlarging existing, markets for British 
manufactures abroad. For instance, in the United States the 
tendency to legislate in favour of free trade was certainly due 
partly to the rerea. in England. However, too much importance 
should not be attached to this, since there was a decrease in 
English exports e.g. to Russia, whose exports to England increased 
enormously as a result of the repeat. In general, it would appear 
that, relatively speaking, Europe’s importance as a market for 
English goods is steadily diminishing; since in 1854, 60 per cent of 
total exports (I mean total exports of British products, disregarding 
re-exports) were absorbed by the United States, Australia and 
India alone, a figure which does not include Britain’s colonies 
outside Europe (excepting India). 

I have jotted down the above information to provide a very 
general answer to your questions. I shall see what I can find in the 
way of definite statistical material in my note-books. As already 
mentioned, books will no doubt only begin coming out now...*