The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Preface to Volumes Vi - Ix
• Introductory Notes to the Correspondence
• 1.: Ricardo to Horner
• 2.: Ricardo to Horner
• 3.: Ricardo to Sir Philip Francis
• 4.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 5]
• 5.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 4—answered By 6]
• 6.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 5]
• 7.: Ricardo to Dumont
• 8.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 9]
• 9.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 8.—ANSWERED By 10]
• 10.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 9]
• 11.: Malthus to Ricardo
• 12.: Ricardo to [malthus][fragment]
• 13.: Malthus to Ricardo
• 14.: Ricardo to [malthus] [a Note On the Jamaica Exchange]
• 15.: Malthus to Ricardo 3[answered By 16]
• 16.: Ricardo to Malthus 2[reply to 15.—ANSWERED By 17]
• 17.: Malthus to Ricardo 1[reply to 16]
• 18.: Ricardo to Perceval 1[answered By 19]
• 19.: Perceval (by Rosenhagen) to Ricardo 1[reply to 18]
• 20.: Ricardo to Bentham 2
• 21.: Malthus to Ricardo 1
• 22.: Mill to Ricardo 1[answered By 23]
• 23.: Ricardo to Mill 1[reply to 22.—ANSWERED By 24]
• 24.: Mill to Ricardo 1[reply to 23]
• 25.: Ricardo to Malthus 1[answered By 26]
• 26.: Malthus to Ricardo 1[reply to 25.—ANSWERED By 27]
• 27.: Ricardo to Malthus 1[reply to 26]
• 28.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 29.: Ricardo to Tierney 1[answered By 30]
• 30.: Tierney to Ricardo1[reply to 29]
• 31.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 32.: Ricardo to Malthus3[answered By 33]
• 33.: Malthus to Ricardo5[reply to 32]
• 34.: Ricardo to Horner1
• 35.: Malthus to Ricardo2
• 36.: Ricardo to Malthus1[fragment]
• 37.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 38.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 39.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 40.: Ricardo to Malthus 1
• 41.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 42.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 43.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 44.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 45.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 46.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 47.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 48]
• 48.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 47]
• 49.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 50.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 51]
• 51.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 50.—ANSWERED By 53]
• 52.: Ricardo to Bentham and Mill1
• 53.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 51.—ANSWERED By 54]
• 54.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 53.—ANSWERED By 55]
• 55.: Ricardo to Malthus3[reply to 54.—ANSWERED By 56]
• 56.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 55.—ANSWERED By 58]
• 57.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 58.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 56.—ANSWERED By 59]
• 59.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 58.—ANSWERED By 60]
• 60.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 59.—ANSWERED By 62]
• 61.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 62.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 60.—ANSWERED By 64]
• 63.: Sinclair to Ricardo1
• 64.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 62.—ANSWERED By 67]
• 65.: Sinclair to Ricardo1[answered By 66]
• 66.: Ricardo to Sinclair1[reply to 65]
• 67.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 64.—ANSWERED By 70]
• 68.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 69.: Place to Ricardo1
• 70.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 67.—ANSWERED By 72]
• 71.: Ricardo to Say2
• 72.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 70.—ANSWERED By 73]
• 73.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 72]
• 74.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 75]
• 75.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 74.—ANSWERED By 76]
• 76.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 75]
• 77.: Ricardo to Malthus3[answered By 78]
• 78.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 77]
• 79.: Trower to Ricardo2
• 80.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 81]
• Malthus to Horner4
• 81.: Ricardo to Malthus3[reply to 80.—ANSWERED By 82]
• 82.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 81.—ANSWERED By 83]
• 83.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 82.—ANSWERED By 84]
• 84.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 83.—ANSWERED By 85]
• 85.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 84.—ANSWERED By 86]
• 86.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 85.—ANSWERED By 87]
• 87.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 86.—ANSWERED By 88]
• 88.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 87.—ANSWERED By 89]
• 89.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 88.—ANSWERED By 90]
• 90.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 89]
• 91.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 92]
• 92.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 91.—ANSWERED By 93]
• 93.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 92.—ANSWERED By 94]
• 94.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 93]
• 95.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 96]
• 96.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 95]
• 97.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 98.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 99.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 100]
• 100.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 99.—ANSWERED By 101]
• 101.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 100.—ANSWERED By 103]
• 102.: Trower to Ricardo1
• 103.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 101.—ANSWERED By 110]
• 104.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 105.: Whishaw to Ricardo2
• 106.: Say to Ricardo1[answered By 107]
• 107.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 106.—ANSWERED By 117]
• 108.: Ricardo to [say]1[answered By 117]
• 109.: Mill to Ricardo5[answered By 114]
• 110.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 103.—ANSWERED By 116]
• 111.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 112.: Grenfell to Ricardo1[fragment]
• 113.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 114.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 109.—ANSWERED By 134]
• 115.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 116.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 110.—ANSWERED By 126]
• 117.: Say to Ricardo1[reply to 107 & 108]
• Say to Ricardo
• 118.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 119.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 120.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 136]
• 121.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 122.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 123.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 124.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 125.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 126.: Malthus to Ricardo5[reply to 116.—ANSWERED By 127]
• 127.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 126.—ANSWERED By 128]
• 128.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 127.—ANSWERED By 130]
• 129.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 130]
• 130.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 128 & 129.—ANSWERED By 137]
• 131.: Malthus to Ricardo2[answered By 132]
• 132.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 131.—ANSWERED By 137]
• 133.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 134.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 114.—ANSWERED By 135]
• 135.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 134.—ANSWERED By 138]
• 136.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 120.—ANSWERED By 141]
• 137.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 130 & 132]
• 138.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 135]
• 139.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 140.: Ricardo to Mill2[answered By 142]
• 141.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 136.—ANSWERED By 147]
• 142.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 140.—ANSWERED By 143]
• 143.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 142.—ANSWERED By 145]
• 144.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 148]
• 145.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 143.—ANSWERED By 149]
• 146.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 150]
• 147.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 141.—ANSWERED By 154]
• 148.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 144.—ANSWERED By 150]
• 149.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 145.—ANSWERED By 151]

85.

ricardo to malthus1
[Reply to 84.—Answered by 86]

London 21 March 1815

My dear Sir

On no subject that we have been lately discussing have we so materially differed as on the one now occupying our attention. Your position, if established, would, I think, overturn both your theory of rent and population, for I understand you to maintain that the higher the price of corn rises, in consequence of more men being employed on the poorer land, the greater will be, not only the surplus produce after paying the labourers, but the ratio of that surplus produce to the whole capital employed on the land. If this be true there is no check to the increase of population, and food can be increased in a ratio exceeding that at which mankind increase. Your statement requires that with every additional labourer not only an equal increase1 but a greater increase of surplus produce should be obtained. More labourers may then be employed without limit, and rent and profit together must not only increase, but increase in a geometrical progression. I am sure I am correct in thus stating your proposition, because if as you say the whole corn expense of production p^r. quarter will be diminished with every rise of price, the surplus must increase in a geometrical ratio with the capital employed. If you meant only that the surplus produce would increase with every accumulation of capital on the land, though in a diminishing ratio to the capital employed on the land, that is not only advanced, but strenuously maintained as the groundwork of my theory, and is the basis also on which my table is formed. You have misapprehended a passage in my last letter. I certainly never said, nor ever thought, that any good reason could be given for an increased number of men being required to produce precisely the same quantity of corn from precisely the same land. What I said was that if at one period the number of labourers required to produce 10 millions of quarters of corn was 2½ millions of men, and at another, in consequence of increased demand, 15 millions of quarters could not be produced with a portion of worse land at a less cost of labour2 than that of 4½ millions, at this latter period a production of 10 millions would require 3 millions of men, because 15 is to 4½, as 10 to 3. And if we supposed the price of corn under such circumstances to increase in the proportion of 2½ to 3, a supposition much more favorable to your view of the question than we should be obliged to concede, yet that it would not support the conclusions to which you arrive but on the contrary would prove my theory to be the correct one. If the calculation had been made, as you think would have been more correct, on an increase from 10 millions to 10½ millions, the result would have been the same, but we should be puzzled with the decimals or fractions which must be employed on such a supposition.—

I agree with you “that the natural price of corn depends entirely upon the price of the last additions and it does not matter whether with regard to the old land a capital yields 50 pc^t. (rent and profit together) or 20 pc^t. In either case the price of corn on such land has nothing to do with the cost of production.” I do not see how the admission of this fact can assist your argument, which relates only to the ratio of the surplus produce to the whole capital employed.

I cannot conceive by what argument you could shew that it might be possible that the addition of another labourer on the land would not pay his expences although not more than ¼ of the population were employed upon the land. Allowing as I most fully do that no pressure can destroy rents, yet as the last portions of capital employed on the land pay no rent, it is to me inconceivable that there would be no inducement to employ more labourers whilst their average production should be 3 times more food than they could themselves consume. If the whole of this surplus, after maintaining in the most frugal manner the owners of stock, were absorbed by the landlords as rent, they would increase their revenue, and employ more labourers on the land, if any among them saved any part of his income and lent it at the common rate of interest.

I am sorry you do not come to town for the next club.

Y^rs. truly

David Ricardo

[1 ]Addressed: ‘To / The Revd. TR Malthus / East India College / Hertford’.

MS at Albury.—Letters to Malthus, XXVIII.

[1 ]‘increase’ here and ‘increase of’ four words below are ins.

[2 ]The last twelve words replace ‘with less labour’.