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]

86.

malthus to ricardo1
[Reply to 85.—Answered by 87]

E I Coll March 24^th [1815]

My dear Sir

What a dreadful reverse!2 and what a prospect we have before us! It is scarcely possible not to be always thinking of it; but it is of no use; so that we may as well distract our attention as much as we can by other subjects.

I think you push my principle much too far; and do not recollect the limitations to which it must necessarily be subject. In the first place all depends upon the relation between corn and other commodities, and as labour and corn enter into the price of all commodities, the difference between corn and other commodities cannot possibly increase in any proportion to the increase in the money price of corn. I have supposed that ⅔ of the farmers advances still consist necessarily of raw produce; and even if the fixed, and other parts of the capital besides food could be had for nothing, and the whole remaining ¼ went in profits and rent, the principle of population would not be destroyed by it. There is no more food produced, on the old land. It is only that there is a difference in the distribution of it, and a larger share of the raw produce remains for profit and rent, chiefly of course the latter. Before,—the farmer to pay his money wages and purchase his fixed capital, was obliged to sell more corn:— Now, he can do this with less, and will have a larger remainder, but the same quantity of corn, neither more nor less, is distributed to the public, and as we dont suppose the people to live worse, precisely the same number are supported from the old land.

On the new land brought into cultivation in consequence of the demand, more men are employed in proportion to the quantity of corn produced, and as the same number of men as before are employed to obtain the old produce, there will be a greater number of men employed in proportion to the whole produce. But if the new produce be inconsiderable compared with the old, it appears to me quite certain that the increased corn expenditure of the former will be more than counterbalanced, by the diminished corn expenditure of the latter; and owing to the increased value of corn, the whole money cost of production on the land will bear a less proportion to the money value of the whole produce. On the other hand, if the new produce is so large, as to require 2 millions of labourers to obtain it, the increased corn expenditure owing to the additional number of persons employed, will more than counterbalance the diminished corn expenditure arising from the increased relative value of corn. It is of course quite impossible to suppose that the relative value of corn to other commodities can continue regularly increasing in proportion to any additional number of men which we may chuse to suppose employed upon the land. There will be in fact a constant reaction to prevent such increasing difference. The increased profits of agriculture, and diminished profits of other employments will increase the quantity of raw produce compared with other commodities, and this joined to the increased money price of corn, will be continually raising the money price of commodities, and bringing them again nearer to a level. I think further that the increased price of corn is in the order of things rather a cause than a consequence of more men being employed. The price rises first from increased demand, and this rise, by increasing the value of produce compared with the instruments of production determines what poor lands can be cultivated. No greater number of men can be employed at the same wages till the price rises.

I have been wrong however in supposing as I did at one time that a greater quantity of raw produce would be set free from the old land for the use and encouragement of the manufacturing and mercantile classes. While the same number of men are employed on the old land without a greater production, and living as well, this cannot be the case. In fact, while that capital the produce of which relatively rises in value becomes more productive, those capitals the produce of which relatively falls in value will become less productive, or yield less profits. But then the greatly increased money value of the corn in the country arising both from its increased quantity and increased price cannot fail to occasion such an increased demand for manufactured and foreign products as to encourage the growth of them and to render improvements in machinery particularly advantageous. Under such circumstances general profits may rise with rising prices of corn, and fall with falling prices, as we find from experience, though such periods are not likely to be of long continuence. The subject is very curious, and the principle when properly matured will I think throw some light on it. I have had little or no leisure lately, and am expecting company in the house. I have written part of answer to Torrens for a new Edition of the Grounds,1 but I think it would be too long, and as I hear of more attacks,2 I fear if I begin to answer I shall be led too much into publick controversies, which I had rather avoid. Do you know whether Torrens is much read. I think he has treated me unjustly in the preface and that the instances of inconsistency which he produces, even if established, would by no means warrant his sweeping accusation.1

If you would lay a tax on foreign corn on account of a tax on our own; does not the same principle apply to the indirect taxes that raise the price of labour? As rents cannot be absorbed, profits and rents together must be high when population stops.

Ever Yours

T R Malthus

Can you come and see us Saturday sennight?

[1 ]Addressed: ‘D. Ricardo Esqr / Upper Brook Street / Grosvenor Square.’ Postmark, 1815.

MS in R.P.

[2 ]Napoleon had entered Paris on 20 March.

[1 ]Cp. above pp. 182 and 186. Malthus did not publish a second edition of The Grounds of an Opinion.

[2 ]The latest attack was a pamphlet, advertised in The Times of 23 March, on The Policy of a Restriction on the Importation of Corn, argued on the Principles of Political Economy, and proved to be inconsistent with the Prosperity of the English Nation...in Reply to the Pamphlets of Professor Malthus. By Philalethes, London, J. M. Richardson, 1815.

[1 ]‘In the writings of the professor he [Torrens] found hints for reflection, and suggestions for farther thought; but he looked in vain either for a development of principles before undiscovered, or for consistent deductions from those already established. It is a singular fact, and one which it is not improper to impress upon the public, that, in the leading questions of economical science, Mr. Malthus scarcely ever embraced a principle, which he did not subsequently abandon’ (Essay on the External Corn Trade, pp. viii- ix).