The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations
• 150.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 146 & 148.—ANSWERED By 152]
• 151.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 149]
• 152.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 150.—ANSWERED By 153]
• 153.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 152]
• 154.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 147.—ANSWERED By 156]
• 155.: Ricardo to Murray2
• 156.: Ricardo to Trower3[reply to 154.—ANSWERED By 159]
• 157.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 158]
• 158.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 157.—ANSWERED By 160]
• 159.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 156.—ANSWERED By 161]
• 160.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 158]
• 161.: Ricardo to Trower3[reply to 159]
• 162.: Ricardo to Malthus3[answered By 163]
• 163.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 162]
• 164.: Crombie to Ricardo1
• 165.: Trower to Ricardo1
• 166.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 167.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 190]
• 168.: Broadley to Ricardo1[answered By 169]
• 169.: Ricardo to Broadley1[reply to 168]
• 170.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 171]
• 171.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 170.—ANSWERED By 176]
• 172.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 174]
• 173.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 175]
• 174.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 172.—ANSWERED By 178]
• 175.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 173.—ANSWERED By 177]
• 176.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 171]
• 177.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 175.—ANSWERED By 180]
• 178.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 174.—ANSWERED By 179]
• 179.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 178.—ANSWERED By 181]
• 180.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 177.—ANSWERED By 185]
• 181.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 179.—ANSWERED By 182]
• 182.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 181.—ANSWERED By 183]
• 183.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 182.—ANSWERED By 184]
• 184.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 183]
• 185.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 180.—ANSWERED By 186, 187 & 192]
• 186.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 185.—ANSWERED By 188]
• 187.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 185.—ANSWERED By 188]
• 188.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 186 & 187.—ANSWERED By 195]
• 189.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 195]
• 190.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 167.—ANSWERED By 194]
• 191.: Trower to Ricardo2
• 192.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 185.—ANSWERED By 193]
• 193.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 192.—ANSWERED By 195]
• 194.: Ricardo to M2[reply to 190]
• 195.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 188, 189 & 193.—ANSWERED By 196]
• 196.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 195]
• 197.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 198.: Trower to Ricardo2[answered By 201]
• 199.: Ricardo to Malthus2[answered By 200]
• 200.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 199]
• 201.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 198.—ANSWERED By 203]
• 202.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 203.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 201.—ANSWERED By 205]
• 204.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 205.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 203.—ANSWERED By 209]
• 206.: Ricardo to Malthus2[answered By 207]
• 207.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 206.—ANSWERED By 208]
• 208.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 207]
• 209.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 205]
• 210.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 211.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 212.: Ricardo to Trower1[answered By 214]
• 213.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 214.: Trower to Ricardo3[reply to 212]
• 215.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 216.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 217]
• 217.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 216]
• 218.: Ricardo to Barton1
• 219.: Ricardo to Trower1[answered By 224]
• 220.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 221.: Say to Ricardo1
• 222.: Ricardo to Malthus3[answered By 225]
• 223.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 227]
• 224.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 219.—ANSWERED By 226]
• 225.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 222.—ANSWERED By 228]
• 226.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 224.—ANSWERED By 235]
• 227.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 223.—ANSWERED By 229]
• 228.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 225]
• 229.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 227.—ANSWERED By 232]
• 230.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 231]
• 231.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 230.—ANSWERED By 233]
• 232.: Mill to Ricardo3[reply to 229.—ANSWERED By 234]
• 233.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 231.—ANSWERED By 237]
• 234.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 232.—ANSWERED By 236]
• 235.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 226.—ANSWERED By 239]
• 236.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 234.—ANSWERED By 242]
• 237.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 233.—ANSWERED By 240]
• 238.: Wakefield to Ricardo1
• 239.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 235]
• 240.: Ricardo to Malthus3[reply to 237]
• 241.: Say to Ricardo1[answered By 243]
• 242.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 236.—ANSWERED By 245]
• 243.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 241]
• 244.: Wakefield to Ricardo1
• 245.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 242.—ANSWERED By 246]
• 246.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 245]
• 247.: Ricardo to Mill2
• 248.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1
• 249.: Ricardo to Trower2[answered By 254]
• 250.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 251.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 252.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 253.: Wakefield to Ricardo1
• 254.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 249.—ANSWERED By 255]
• 255.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 254]
• 256.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 258]
• 257.: Whishaw to Ricardo1
• 258.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 256]
• 259.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 261]
• 260.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 264]
• 261.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 259.—ANSWERED By 268]
• 262.: Warburton to Ricardo1
• 263.: Ricardo to Mill2
• 264.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 260.—ANSWERED By 266]
• 265.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 267]
• 266.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 264]
• 267.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 265.—ANSWERED By 271]
• 268.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 261.—ANSWERED By 272]
• 269.: Ricardo to Sharp1
• 270.: Ricardo to Mill2[answered By 273]
• 271.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 267.—ANSWERED By 285]
• 272.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 268.—ANSWERED By 276]
• 273.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 270.—ANSWERED By 274]
• 274.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 273]
• 275.: Ricardo to Mill2[answered By 278]
• 276.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 272.—ANSWERED By 279]
• 277.: Malthus to Ricardo1
• 278.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 275.—ANSWERED By 280]
• 279.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 276.—ANSWERED By 287]
• 280.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 278.—ANSWERED By 282]
• 281.: Ricardo to Murray2
• 282.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 280.—ANSWERED By 284]
• 283.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 284.: Ricardo to Mill4[reply to 282.—ANSWERED By 289]
• 285.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 271.—ANSWERED By 290]
• 286.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 287.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 279.—ANSWERED By 295]
• 288.: Wakefield to Ricardo1
• 289.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 284]
• 290.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 285.—ANSWERED By 300]
• 291.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 292]
• 292.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 291.—ANSWERED By 294]
• 293.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 294.: Mill to Ricardo4[reply to 292.—ANSWERED By 296]
• 295.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 287.—ANSWERED By 304]
• 296.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 294.—ANSWERED By 297]
• 297.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 296.—ANSWERED By 298]
• 298.: Ricardo to Mill4[reply to 297.—ANSWERED By 303]
• 299.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 300]

192.

mill to ricardo1
[Reply to 185.—Answered by 193]

Ford Abbey Nov^r. 18^th. 1816

My dear Sir

If the length of time I have taken to read your M.S. has not interrupted your progress, I shall make for it no apology. I wished to read it carefully, writing marginal contents for my own use, as I went along. And I could not conveniently bestow upon that subject more than a limited portion of each day. However I now have got through the whole, and have the contents of each paragraph, regularly numbered, before me.

Perhaps I ought to begin by speaking ill of the whole production, that I might give you confidence in my sincerity; as that seems to be your grand test. However I have time for nothing just now, but to come to the point as directly as possible. And I authorize you to believe, that I shall not even employ one word for the sake of encouraging you, as a young beginner, but shall speak the truth to you as I would have done had you been as hackneyed a stager as I am myself.

My opinion may be given in very few words; for I think you have made out all your points. There is not a single proposition the proof of which I think is not irresistible. With the curious result pointed out in your letter with respect to the effects produced by the rise of wages, on the price of those commodities which are chiefly the return from fixed capital, I was very much struck; but have no doubt whatsoever as to the validity of your conclusions, the proof of which I think is incontrovertible.

Your explanation of the general principle that quantity of labour is the cause and measure of exchangeable value, excepting in the cases which you except, is both satisfactory, and clear.1

Your exposition and argumentation to shew, in opposition to A. Smith, that profits of stock do not disturb that law, are luminous.2 So are the exposition and argumentation to shew that rent also operates no such disturbance.

And to this extent the disquisition is remarkably free of that sin which most easily besets you, of crowding too many points into one place; and summoning all the parts of the science at once to prove a particular point. The argument thus far is not only convincing, but clear, and easily understood.

At page 793 you begin the inquiry concerning the causes of alterations in the state of wages; and from this to p. 105, I think the topics are somewhat mixed together. I have not meditated sufficiently to be able to say how far that is avoidable; but I consider the inquiry in these pages as an inquiry not into the causes of change in the rate of wages alone, but the causes of changes in the wages, profits, and rent all together. The grounds laid down for every one of the opinions carry the firmest conviction to my mind; and several of the doctrines which puzzled me formerly, are now perfectly clear.

The inquiry concerning foreign trade, which commences at p. 106,1 and continues to the end, is like the rest, original, and sound, and excellently demonstrated. That foreign trade augments not the value of a nations property: that it may be good for a country to import commodities from a country where the production of those same commodities costs more, than it would cost at home: that a change in manufacturing skill in one country, produces a new distribution of the precious metals, are new propositions of the highest importance, and which you fully prove.

You have, therefore, made great progress toward the production of a most admirable book. The stile also, is really excellent. You have improved in that respect exceedingly. There are but a few expressions in the whole which, if you had been going to print immediately, I should have recommended it to you to alter. Of these I have taken no notice at present, because they are not worth your minding. What I am anxious for is, that you should go on, exactly as you are doing, till you have got all your thoughts, in this shape, upon paper; and have gone over the whole subject. It will then be easy to give you advice about marshalling, and separating. And easy then for you to put the last hand to a work which will gain you immortal honour.

The M.S. was sent yesterday to Illminster, addressed to Mr. Clutterbuck, and is by this time at Bath. Send me the rest of what you have done. I long to hear you on tithes. I beg to hear from you without delay; and am most truly

Yours

J. Mill

[1 ]Addressed: ‘David Ricardo Esq. / Gatcomb Park / Minchinhampton / Gloucestershire’ and redirected: ‘T. Clutterbuck Esqre / Wedcombe House / Bath’. Received by Ricardo on 29 November; see his reply.

MS in R.P.

[1 ]See above, I, 12 ff.

[2 ]See above, I, 22, n. 3 and ff. pp.

[3 ]Corresponding, presumably, to I, 88, of the present ed.

[1 ]Above, I, 128.