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]

87.

ricardo to malthus2
[Reply to 86.—Answered by 88]

London 27^th. March 1815

My dear Sir

No political event which I recollect ever occasioned so great a gloom as the late lamentable reverse.—At present we have the most dismal forebodings of war, and its consequences, on our finances,—the truth is our courage is not screwed up to the proper pitch,—like every thing else we shall be easy under our new situation in another fortnight. I am glad however to turn my attention to other subjects.

I have observed in the bullion pamphlet1 that many who say they consider money only as a commodity, and subject to the same laws of variation in value from demand and supply as other commodities, seldom proceed far in their reasoning about money without shewing that they really consider money as something peculiar,—varying from causes totally different from those which affect other commodities. Do you not fall into this error when you say “In the first place all depends upon the relation between corn and other commodities, and as labour and corn enter into the prices 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”? If money be a commodity does not corn and labour enter into its price or value? and if they do, why should not money vary as compared with corn and labour by the same law as all other commodities do? As far as this question regards the importation of corn you are much more interested than I am in maintaining the uniform value of commodities, because if the rise of the price of corn and labour will as you contend raise the price of our commodities, this is an additional reason why we should not impose restrictions on the importation of corn, as it will subject us to a decided disadvantage in our competition with foreigners for the sale of our commodities. Not however to dwell on this very essential point,—I agree with you that a rise in the price of corn occasions a different distribution of the produce from the old land. It does this by lowering profits. Instead of a manufacturer having it in his power to maintain a servant or mechanic who may contribute to his enjoyment, that power will be transferred to the landlord and this will arise from the lower corn value of manufactured goods. Indeed I see no limit to the fall of the corn value of goods but the impossibility of manufacturing them with any the least return of profit, and this will not happen till the landlord has appropriated to himself in the form of rent nearly the whole surplus produce of the land. It appears to me that the progress of wealth, whilst it encourages accumulation, has a natural tendency to produce this effect and is as certain as the principle of gravitation.

You have I think totally changed your proposition. You before contended that in consequence of increasing wealth and the cultivation of poorer land, the whole corn cost of production on the land would bear a less proportion to the whole corn produce,—but now you say that the money cost of production on the land will bear a less proportion to the money value of the whole produce. Between these propositions there is a very material difference, as the latter might be true, at the very time that the former was false. To admit what you now contend for would not affect my theory, as though it would prove that the landlord and tenant (together) got more money revenue, or if you will a greater proportion of money revenue as compared to the money capital employed, yet the tenant might and I think would get a less proportion, and therefore the rate of profits would fall. Such a state of price is quite compatible with a greater proportion of men, as compared with the produce obtained, being employed on the land;—but it is wholly irreconcileable with the net corn produce bearing a larger proportion to the gross corn produce,—which was the principle before contended for.

I agree with you that the increased price of corn in the order of things is rather a cause than a consequence of a greater than the usual number of men being employed to obtain the same quantity of produce from new land, because profits from such an employment of capital may be higher than other profits,—but this difference of profit may be owing to a general fall in the rate of profits on other concerns rather than to1 the actual elevation of the profits on land, and I am of opinion that a rise in the price of corn always lowers general profits by increasing wages. I can in no way satisfy myself that general profits can rise with a rising price of corn and fall with falling prices, unless they are raised or lowered by diminishing or increasing wages, and then they can be but of short duration. In the ordinary course of things as a high price of corn attends a state of progression, wages of labour will be really high, and profits cannot rise because of wages being low.

I am decidedly of opinion that Torrens has treated you unjustly in his remarks in the preface of his book. If I recollect right you acknowledged an alteration in your opinion respecting the corn laws, since you wrote your essay on population, in your “Observations on the Corn Laws.”2 I think too that you have always held the opinion you now do that the difference between the value of gold and paper was partly owing to the rise of the value of gold.3 Is not his criticism very much strained as to the use of the word depreciation?4 But if he be right in all, the instances are much too few to justify his severe observation. At the Geological Club his book was spoken of the other day with great approbation. Mr. Blake1 and Mr. Greenough2 think that he has exhausted the subject and that his arguments cannot be controverted.—I should think that he is very generally read.3

“If I would lay a tax on foreign corn” you ask “on account of a tax on our own; does not the same principle apply to the indirect taxes that raise the price of labour?” I think not because a tax on corn will raise the price of corn twice, once on account of the tax and a second time on account of the rise of wages, but as this second rise is common to all things in which labour enters and will be corrected by a new value of money, it will not be of long duration. The indirect taxes which only raise the wages of labour produce I think the same effects as the second rise in the price of corn of which I have just been speaking. Whenever a tax bore with unequal effect on the land, when it did not affect labour bestowed in other employments a countervailing duty on importation should I think be also imposed.—I fear I cannot be with you on saturday. If you do not hear from me by wednesday’s Post, conclude that I cannot leave home. Comp^ts. to Mrs. Malthus.

Ever Y^rs.

David Ricardo

[2 ]Addressed: ‘To / The Revd.T R Malthus / East India College / Hertford’.

MS at Albury.—Letters to Malthus, XXIX.

[1 ]Above, III, 103–4.

[1 ]‘rather than to’ replaces ‘as by’.

[2 ]1st ed., 1814, p. 3.

[3 ]According to Torrens (Essay on the External Corn Trade, p. x) at the time of the Bullion Controversy Malthus ‘was known to be a strenuous supporter’ of the contrary opinion.

[4 ]Torrens (p. xi, note) takes Malthus to task for having spoken (in Grounds of an Opinion, p. 9) of depreciation of the currency in a case in which the difference between currency and bullion was produced, not ‘by a fall in currency’, but ‘by bullion having risen’. ‘The very inaccurate and unphilosophical language which Mr. Malthus employs when alluding to our monetary system, shews that he has not yet attained any accurate conceptions on the question of the currency.’

[1 ]William Blake (ca. 1774–1852), F.R.S., the writer on foreign exchanges, was President of the Geological Society in 1815–16. The Society dined together once a month from November to June at the Freemasons’ Tavern.(H. B. Woodward, History of the Geological Society of London, 1907, pp. 16 and 286.)

[2 ]George Bellas Greenough (1778–1855), F.R.S., geographer and geologist; the first President of the Geological Society, and at this time one of its Vice-Presidents.

[3 ]Later, however, Ricardo tells Malthus that the sale of Torrens’s book ‘was very limited’ (below, VII, 141).