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]

127.

ricardo to malthus1
[Reply to 126.—Answered by 128]

7^th. Oct^r. 1815

My dear Sir

By facility of production I do not mean to consider the productiveness of the soil only, but the skill, machinery, and labour joined to the natural fertility of the earth. It does not therefore follow that because Othaeite2 has an abundance of fertile land that profits should be there at the highest rate, because the skill, and the means of abridging labour may in Europe more than compensate this natural advantage of Othaeite. The question is this, If part of3 the skill and capital of England were employed in Othaeite to produce 100,000 quarters of corn, would not the persons employing that capital obtain greater profits in Othaeite than they would if they employed the same capital for the same purpose here, and would not rent be lower there than here? You must at any rate allow that the quantity of corn produced with a given quantity of capital, supposing the same skill to be employed, must be greater there than here, or there is no meaning in fertility of soil. You must allow too that in proportion to the fertility of Othaeite and to its extent compared with the population will be the lowness of rent, notwithstanding its abundant rate of produce. I can easily conceive that with the imperfect tillage the people of Othaeite now give their land, the population may be just sufficiently numerous to require that the whole of their lands should be in cultivation, and consequently that they should bear a rent,—but let 100 Europeans only join them with our improved machinery, and perfectly skilled in husbandry, and the immediate consequence would be that ¾ of their lands would for a time1 become perfectly useless to them as the ¼ might produce them more food than all the inhabitants could possibly consume. Now I ask whether it be possible that ¾ of the land of a country can be suffered to pass from a state of tillage to a state of nature without occasioning a fall in rents? If land is less in demand must not the rent of it fall? If you say no, there is no truth in the proposition that value depends upon the proportion between supply and demand.

Now Suppose England in the state in which I have been fancying Othaeite, and she is actually in that state, all or most of2 her land being in cultivation; and suppose further that there is another country totally unknown to us whose skill and machinery in husbandry as far surpasses ours, as ours do that of the Othaeitians. If 100 of these persons were to come amongst us with their capital, skill &c^a.,—would not the same consequences follow as I have just stated? Now every improvement in machinery is precisely, on a small scale, what I have been here supposing on a large scale, and I am quite astonished that you should yet maintain that “Universally where land is limited in quantity, the facility of production upon it, will go mainly to rent, and the soil of a country might be of such fertility as to yield 60 fold instead of 8 or 10 and yet the profits of stock be only 6 pc^t. and the wages of labour both nominally and really low.” Land like every thing else rises or falls in proportion to the demand for it; every improvement which shall enable you to raise the same quantity of produce on a less quantity of land, or which is the same thing, a larger quantity of produce on the same quantity of land can not increase the demand for land, and therefore can not raise rents.

I do not clearly see the distinction which you think important between productiveness of industry and productiveness of capital. Every machine which abridges labour adds to the productiveness of industry, but it adds also to the productiveness of capital. England with machinery and with a given capital will obtain a greater real net1 produce, than Othaeite with the same capital, without machinery, whether it be in manufactures or in the produce of the soil. It will do so because it employs much fewer hands to obtain the same produce. Industry is more productive, so is Capital. It appears to me that one is a necessary consequence of the other and that the opinion which I have advanced and which you are combating is that in the progress of society, independently of all improvements in skill and machinery, the produce of industry constantly diminishes as far as the land is concerned, and consequently capital becomes less productive. That this diminution of produce is beneficial to all owners of land, but that it is so at the expence of manufacturers, amongst which I include farmers, first by rendering the commodities which they manufacture of less exchangeable value than they before were for corn, and secondly by raising the cost of production by raising the price of labour.

I shall put this letter in the Post office in London where I am going to morrow for a few days. I have been writing in my unconnected and confined stile my opinions on the profits of the Bank, and on the advantages of a paper and nothing but a paper currency.2 I am too little pleased with it to think of publishing. The whole is too little for a pamphlet. Mr. Grenfell is I think anxious that something should be said about the Bank before the meeting of Parliament, and I too wish some able hand would undertake it.

I am always glad to hear that you are preparing for the press, for though I do not always agree in opinion with you I am sure that your writings will contribute towards the progress of a science in which I take great interest. I should be more pleased that we did not so materially differ. If I am too theoretical which I really believe is the case,—you I think are too practical. There are so many combinations,— so many operating causes in Political Economy, that there is great danger in appealing to experience in favor of a particular doctrine, unless we are sure that all the causes of variation are seen and their effects duly estimated.

Mr. Whishaw and Mr. Warburton have been at Mr. Smith’s for some time.—I have been absent from home unfortunately, and have seen but little of them. I yesterday dined with Mr. Whishaw, he talked of leaving Mr. Smith immediately.

Mrs. Ricardo joins in kind compliments to Mrs. Malthus.

Y^rs.

David Ricardo

I thank you for noticing Clerk.

[1 ]Addressed: ‘To / The Revd.T R Malthus / East India College / Hertford’. Written at Gatcomb but posted in London (postmark, 9 Oct.).

MS at Albury.—Letters to Malthus, XXXVI.

[2 ]Ricardo’s spelling, here and below.

[3 ]‘part of’ is ins.

[1 ]‘for a time’ is ins. 2 ‘or most of’ is ins.

[2 ]I am too little pleased with it

[1 ]‘net’ is ins.

[2 ]Economical and Secure Currency.