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]

278.

mill to ricardo1
[Reply to 275.—Answered by 280]

4 College Terrace, Bagshot, 26^th. Oct^r. 1818

My Dear Sir

I am inclined to bring up the rear of my part of our correspondence just now, fearing I may have less leisure in future. We are still here, as you see; to which several things have contributed. Besides the continuance of good weather, a still stronger cause has been accidentally added. To the course of education destined for the gentlemen cadets at this college, has been recently added a course of chemical lectures, which began to be delivered for the first time about three weeks ago, by a gentleman from London. Although these lectures have been held very sacred, and even the sons of the Professors and officers of the institution excluded from them, the great authorities of the place united in an invitation to John to attend them, and the opportunity I thought of some importance, as now the time was come when I wished him to see a course of chemical experiments.2 The distinction of this invitation he owed to a little reputation he has acquired, very accidentally. Among the Professors here are two or three gentlemen of Oxford and Cambridge, really clever men, and another very accomplished Oxford scholar, tutor to the Governor’s sons.3 These gentlemen and I having got intimate, and taking our walks together, one of them called upon me one evening when I was out, and missing me fell into conversation with John, and asked him about his studies. The account the boy gave him of what he had done he mentioned to the rest; and the whole appeared either folly or cheat; that I was either fool enough to let the boy pass over a multitude of things without knowing them, or wished to impose upon others by making the semblance of knowledge in him pass for the reality; as no child they concluded could possibly know all that he told his interrogator he had done. An occasion was soon taken to put him to the test, by inviting me to the house of one of them, when I was requested to bring the boy along with me. All were present, and as their purpose was to me unknown, I was a little surprised when they began a rigid examination. The consequence was that they expressed extravagant admiration, as absurd, I told them, as their scepticism which they mentioned to me, had been before. Nevertheless they trumpeted their admiration, and he began to be taken too much notice of; the governor begged he might be allowed to go to his house as much as possible, and make friendship with his boys, and so the thing has gone on. I was anxious he should hear the lectures, and I was unwilling to appear to slight the compliment which had been paid him, by taking him away: and I was still more unwilling to leave him to the spoiling of the notice he is receiving. I have arranged matters accordingly, thus. This week and the next will finish the said lectures, all but a few on geology which he can learn from books. I shall remain here till the end of this week, when I must pay my promised visit to Hume: Mrs. Mill will remain here with the children till the end of the week following, when we shall all assemble in London. And this is the principal part of my history since my last—except that I have not at all been well. A bowel complaint, consisting of costiveness attended with severe gripings, has been prevalent here for the last three weeks, and I have had too great a share of it; the pain, and the medicines necessary for relief, have kept me in a very uncomfortable state of body, and have unfitted my mind for study— I have done little but read. My wife is also now ill in the same way. Your family I hope are all well, and Mr. Moses fast recovering. I am truly sorry for the misfortune of Mrs. Clutterbuck, but comfort myself from what you say that her own constitution has suffered as little as could well be in such a case. Pray what are the news of Mr. Ralph? If he is with you, or if you see him before I do, tell him I shall make up for the delinquency of not answering his letter, by talk in abundance when we meet in London, or its neighbourhood.

I had a short scrawl from Torrens the other day, about his son who is at the college here, and who, he is afraid, will be dismissed—the boy is too idle to get knowledge enough to pass; and he wishes me to see what I can do among the professors and office-bearers for him. He adds: “I have just returned from Edin. which I liked extremely. I introduced myself to M^c. Culloch and was highly pleased with him. We had much discussion on Ricardo’s doctrine of value. I threw my arguments upon paper, and they will be printed in the next N^o. of the Edin. Magazine.1 M^c. Culloch answers me in the ensuing N^o., and each is quite confident of gaining the victory over the other. The battle, however, is a most perfectly amicable one.”1 I am very glad of this—it will promote the reputation both of the doctrine and its author. I should not wonder if it is Blackwoods Mag. he means; as I see in the advertisement of the present N^o. an article entitled Ricardo and the Edin. Rev2 .

I am quite pleased with your declaration that you would betake yourself to the writing of the discourses1 we have so often talked about, as soon as Mr. Basevi left you; and I doubt not you are now deeply engaged, and already feeling delight in your progress. The exercise will be of prodigious advantage to you—and as I know well how much it would have accelerated my own progress, had a man of more experience than myself looked at the productions of my pen when my experience in expressing my thoughts to others was not yet great, I shall not at all mind delicacy in urging you to let me see yours. A few lines shewing where you may have developed too sparingly, or where on another occasion you may have dwelt too long, where you have divided less advantageously than you might, or made a less perfect arrangement than the subject admitted of, given your thoughts in one order when another would have been either more clear, or more impressive; where you may have omitted any thing necessary, or used any thing not necessary; where a flaw may occur in your reasoning; or where you may have used a fallacy instead of a proof—these things pointed out a few times in a composition of your own, when your mind has been attentive to the subject, will give you such an insight into the whole mystery of these errors and their opposite perfections, that you will carry the command of it to every subject you undertake. Nor do I speak all this at random; but from a very exact register of the experience I have had first of my own mind, and then of all the minds with which I have dealt. Your mind in fact is in that state of maturity, in which a small portion of new instruction of the right kind goes a great way with it. And do not take this as a compliment: the same is the case with every mind which has taken as much pains with itself. Now your habits of attentive observation, and attentive reflection, in your course through life, on all you have seen, and heard, and read, is that sort of pains I speak of; and that is the best part of education. You over-rate what is got in the schools; when you think that it places you irrecoverably behind. The best things the schools could give would be those habits of attention observation and reflection which you have got without the schools; and which our imperfect schools are so very ill calculated to give. Therefore no mistrust. You will soon find how little occasion you have for it. Who of them has a mind to compare with yours? Some of the very best among them profess they are unable with all their efforts to understand what you have demonstrated. In fact I have set my heart upon your making a figure: that is the short and the long of it—and you must not disappoint me. Compliments to the whole of your fire side, whose kind remembrance I am so anxious to retain: with best regards to Mrs. Osman and her lord—glad to hear of the profound studies in La Nouvelle Heloise—by the bye she ought to write to me all she thinks about it, all the remarks and discoveries, and criticisms she has made.

Ever yours

J. Mill

[1 ]Addressed: ‘David Ricardo Esq / Gatcomb Park / Minchinhampton. / Glo’ster Shire’.

MS in R.P.

[2 ]J. S. Mill, giving an account of his studies in a letter to Sir Samuel Bentham, dated 30 July 1819, says: ‘having had an opportunity of attending a course of lectures on chemistry, delivered by Mr. Phillips, at the Royal Military College, Bagshot, I have applied myself particularly to that science’. (Quoted by Bain, J. S. Mill. A Criticism, 1882, p. 8.)

[3 ]Probably William Mills, of Magdalen College, Oxford, afterwards Whyte Professor of Moral Philosophy. The Governor was Maj.-Gen. Sir Alexander Hope.

[1 ]Robert Torrens’s article, entitled ‘Strictures on Mr. Ricardo’s Doctrine Respecting Exchangeable Value’, appeared in the Edinburgh Magazine for Oct. 1818, pp. 335– 8; it was written in the form of a letter to the editor and signed ‘R’. Torrens criticised Ricardo’s theory of value and contended that ‘when capitalists and labourers become distinct, it is always the amount of capital, and never the quantity of labour, expended on production, which determines the exchangeable value of commodities.’ McCulloch replied in the number for November, pp. 429– 31, under the title ‘Mr. Ricardo’s Theory of Exchangeable Value Vindicated from the Objections of R.’; his article is signed ‘M.’ and dated 2 Nov. 1818. He says: ‘Mr. Ricardo has not, as far as I can discern, anywhere affirmed, that when equal capitals are of different degrees of durability, the products of equal quantities of labour will not be of equal value. He has, I am quite certain, made no such statement. He contends, and justly too, that the products of equal quantities of Labour are always equal.’ He asks ‘What is capital but accumulated labour? ’ and concludes: ‘to tell us that the value of commodities depends on the amount of capital consumed in their production is only another, but an extremely cumbrous, roundabout and incorrect way of telling us, that their value depends on the total quantity of labour required to bring them to market.’ Ricardo, no doubt sharing Mill’s dissatisfaction with this vindication (cp. below, p. 364), wrote a reply of his own (see below, p. 360). This reply has not been found; see however the series of parallel passages quoted by Ricardo in refutation of Torrens, above, IV, 315. Cp. below, p. 338.

[1 ]Some additional details are given by Torrens in a letter from Edinburgh, 30 Sept. 1818, to Place, in London: ‘On Sunday I dined with Constable the Bookseller we had a pleasant literary party American and English and I had the good fortune to be placed beside McCulloch who reviewed Ricardo. He is about thirty; very good humoured, and unaffected. We had much conversation. He says he is the only Edinburgh economist who has embraced the doctrines of Ricardo; and seemed glad to meet one of the converts though not agreeing in all points. I have given him my intended review [cp. above, p. 179, n. 2] to read and it is my present purpose to publish it in the form of a letter to Mr. Philips. I make progress in my Work upon political Economy and shall be soon ready to go to press. If Mill has returned to Town remember me kindly to him’. In a postscript he adds: ‘I leave this on Friday and shall be in London in about a fortnight. I have been this instant introduced to Buchanan who edited Adam Smith. We entered upon Economy instantly. He admits as far as I can learn in a short conversation none of Ricardos doctrines. He admires Malthus highly. McCulloch does not’. (MS in British Museum, Add. 37949, fols. 70–1.) Cp. below, p. 354.

[2 ]The article in Blackwood’s Magazine, Oct. 1818, on ‘Ricardo and the Edinburgh Review’, signed J. G. deals with McCulloch’s review of Ricardo and has no connection with Torrens’s criticism. Cp. below, p. 332.

[1 ]See above, p. 301.