The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations
• 300.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 290 & 299]
• 301.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 302.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 303]
• 303.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 298 & 302]
• 304.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 295.—ANSWERED By 307]
• 305.: Ricardo to Place2
• 306.: Sharp to Ricardo2
• 307.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 304]
• 308.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 309]
• 309.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 308.—ANSWERED By 310]
• 310.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 309.—ANSWERED By 314]
• 311.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 312]
• 312.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 311]
• 313.: Ricardo to Trower2
• 314.: Mcculloch to Ricardo4[reply to 310.—ANSWERED By 315]
• 315.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[reply to 314]
• 316.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 317]
• 317.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 316]
• 318.: Ricardo to Mill2[answered By 319]
• 319.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 318]
• 320.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 321.: Ricardo to Mill4[answered By 322]
• 322.: Mill to Ricardo3[reply to 321.—ANSWERED By 323]
• 323.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 322.—ANSWERED By 325]
• 324.: Malthus to Ricardo2[answered By 328]
• 325.: Mill to Ricardo4[reply to 323.—ANSWERED By 329]
• 326.: Ricardo to Place1
• 327.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 330]
• 328.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 324.—ANSWERED By 338]
• 329.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 325.—ANSWERED By 332 & 337]
• 330.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 327.—ANSWERED By 339]
• 331.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 333]
• 332.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 329]
• 333.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 331.—ANSWERED By 344]
• 334.: Brown to Ricardo1[answered By 336]
• 335.: Brown to Ricardo1[answered By 336]
• 336.: Ricardo to Brown1[reply to 334 & 335]
• 337.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 329]
• 338.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 328.—ANSWERED By 345]
• 339.: Trower to Ricardo3[reply to 330.—ANSWERED By 346]
• 340.: Bentham to Ricardo1
• 341.: Ricardo to Place2
• 342.: Place to Ricardo1[answered By 343]
• 343.: Ricardo to Place1[reply to 342]
• 344.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 333.—ANSWERED By 349]
• 345.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 338]
• 346.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 339]
• 347.: Say to Ricardo1[answered By 352]
• 348.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 349]
• 349.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 344 & 348]
• 350.: Ricardo to Heathfield1
• 351.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 352.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 347.—ANSWERED By 356]
• 353.: Lord Grenville to Ricardo2
• 354.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 355.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 358]
• 356.: Say to Ricardo1[reply to 352]
• 357.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 358.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 355.—ANSWERED By 359]
• 359.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 358.—ANSWERED By 360]
• 360.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 359.—ANSWERED By 361]
• 361.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 360—answered By 366]
• 362.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[answered By 366]
• 363.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 364.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 365.: Ricardo to Napier1
• 366.: Mcculloch to Ricardo3[reply to 361 & 362.—ANSWERED By 368]
• 367.: Ricardo to Bentham2
• 368.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[reply to 366.—ANSWERED By 372]
• 369.: Bentham to Ricardo5
• 370.: Ricardo to Mill3
• 371.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 373]
• 372.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 368.—ANSWERED By 375]
• 373.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 371.—ANSWERED By 376]
• 374.: Ricardo to Mill2
• 375.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 372.—ANSWERED By 377]
• 376.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 373—answered By 380]
• 377.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 375.—ANSWERED By 381]
• 378.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 379]
• 379.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 378.—ANSWERED By 388]
• 380.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 376.—ANSWERED By 384]
• 381.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 377]
• 382.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 383]
• 383.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 382]
• 384.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 380.—ANSWERED By 387]
• 385.: Mill to Ricardo2[answered By 386]
• 386.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 385.—ANSWERED By 389]
• 387.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 384.—ANSWERED By 390]
• 388.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 379.—ANSWERED By 392]
• 389.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 386.—ANSWERED By 394]
• 390.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 387.—ANSWERED By 391]
• 391.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 390.—ANSWERED By 397]
• 392.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 388.—ANSWERED By 395]
• 393.: Say to Ricardo1[answered By 430]
• 394.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 389.—ANSWERED By 398]
• 395.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 392.—ANSWERED By 402]
• 396.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 397.: Trower to Ricardo4[reply to 391.—ANSWERED By 403]
• 398.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 394.—ANSWERED By 400]
• 399.: Mill to Ricardo2[answered By 400]
• 400.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 398 & 399]
• 401.: Ricardo to Mccullochcculloch3[answered By 406]
• 402.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 395.—ANSWERED By 404]
• 403.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 397.—ANSWERED By 410]
• 404.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 402.—ANSWERED By 405]
• 405.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 404.—ANSWERED By 408]
• 406.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 401.—ANSWERED By 407]
• 407.: Ricardo to Mccullochcculloch1[reply to 406.—ANSWERED By 412]
• 408.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 405]
• 409.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[answered By 412]
• 410.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 403.—ANSWERED By 415]
• 411.: Malthus to Ricardo2
• 412.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 407 & 409.—ANSWERED By 416]
• 413.: Mill to Ricardo3[answered By 414]
• 414.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 413]
• 415.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 410.—ANSWERED By 419]
• 416.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 412.—ANSWERED By 417]
• 417.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 416.—ANSWERED By 418]
• 418.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 417.—ANSWERED By 421]
• 419.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 415.—ANSWERED By 420]
• 420.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 419]
• 421.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 418.—ANSWERED By 422]
• 422.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 421.—ANSWERED By 424]
• 423.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 426]
• 424.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 422.—ANSWERED By 428]
• 425.: Tooke to Ricardo3
• 426.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 423]
• 427.: Tooke to Ricardo2
• 428.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 424.—ANSWERED By 431]
• Malthus to Sismondi1
• 429.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1
• 430.: Ricardo to Say2[reply to 393.—ANSWERED By 446]
• 431.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 428.—ANSWERED By 433]
• 432.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 433.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 431.—ANSWERED By 434]
• 434.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 433.—ANSWERED By 436]
• 435.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 437]
• 436.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 434.—ANSWERED By 474]

417.

m^cculloch to ricardo2
[Reply to 416.—Answered by 418]

Edinburgh 22^nd Jany 1821

My Dear Sir

I return you herewith your manuscripts which I have read with as much attention as was possible for me to bestow, and with equal advantage and pleasure—If Mr. Malthus can read over your remarks on his work without renouncing many of those positions on which he has laid the greatest stress, he can have but a very slender claim to the character of a candid reasoner or of a sincere lover of truth—Nothing I apprehend can be more complete and satisfactory than your remarks on accumulation and on the improvement of machinery3 —Your argument is here quite unassailable—You have not in fact left a single loop-hole or cranny by which your adversary can escape—Nothing remains for him but to surrender unconditionally—I do not, however, think that you are either so perspicuous or so successful in what you have said about value—This in my humble opinion is the least valuable part of your notes—You say that Mr. Malthus “is quite right in asserting that many commodities in which labour chiefly enters, and which can be quickly brought to market will rise with a rise in the value of labour,”1 meaning I presume with a rise of real wages, that is, with an increase in the proportion of the produce of the labourers exertions given to him—I confess I was not prepared for this proposition, and I should like to have seen you devote three or four pages to explain it—You do not I am sure mean to say that a rise of wages can raise the real value of any class of commodities—It can only raise their relative value, and it does this not in consequence of their rising in absolute value, but of others falling in a still greater ratio—Suppose that the durability of the different capitals employed in production are as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, &c, and that 1 is the least and 10 the most durable—When wages rise they are all affected in the same way but in different degrees. 10 is less affected than 9, 9 than 8 and so on; they must, therefore, all sink in relative value except the first, 2 will fall but a very little, 3 a little more and so on—As any standard with which they can be compared must itself be produced by the employment of capital returnable in a certain period, when wages rise those commodities which are produced by less durable capitals will appear to rise and those which are produced by more durable capitals will appear to fall—In truth, however, the whole would have fallen; and if the standard had been produced by capital whose durability was equal to 1 they would almost all have fallen as compared with this standard while it is plain none could have risen—If I am right in this reasoning it is conclusive as to Mr. Malthus objections, and it shews that no commodities, however rapidly returnable the capital employed in their production may be[,] can be raised by a rise in the wages of labour. I hope you will have the goodness to state to me your opinion on this point, for it is one on which of all others I most wish to have sound opinions.

This, however, is a point which if it be really involved in any degree of obscurity you can very easily clear up, but I have other objections to your publishing your notes in their present shape—They are by far too controversial; and the plan you have adopted has necessarily involved you in what seems to me to be a good deal of tedious and unnecessary repetition—The better way in my humble opinion would have been to have briefly stated the leading objections of Mr. Malthus to your theory, and then to have refuted him, without following him like a commentator from page to page—This is the plan, or nearly so which you adopted in your reply to Mr. Bosanquet, and it is the only one that can be satisfactory to the reader—Satisfied as I truly am of the very great value of your Notes, and of the benefit which their publication would confer on the science, still I should be extremely sorry were you to give them to the world in their present state—If you consider it as too great a sacrifice to recast them in the shape of answers to propositions, you might at least shorten the previous part of them—all before accumulation—with very great advantage—The first economist of the age ought not to waste his time in writing a refutation of every error into which another economist may have fallen, but only to set him right on those great principles which affect the foundations of the science—

I throw myself on your goodness to excuse the freedom of my remarks—It is alone to my anxiety for your reputation as an economist that you must ascribe them—Had my respect and attachment for you been less sincere I should not certainly have troubled you with the previous remarks—

Your observations on Say are excellent, but is there not a little repetition in the first part of the one of what is said in the first part of the other?1 —

I am heartily glad to see a third edition of your work advertised—Though I am of opinion that it is nearly perfect still I think it may be improved a little—I think you might recast the chapter on Accumulation and make it a good deal more complete; there are also one or two other points on which I think you might make some alterations with advantage—I see Malthus is taking to his old trick of bookmaking2 —His book instead of being lengthened ought to have been curtailed one third3 —

I have enclosed you a copy of my article on Interest4 —I am afraid you will hardly reckon it worth sending—The subject was so hacknied that I had little or nothing new to bring forward—

I am glad you approved of the paper on the Corn laws in the Scotsman; and I wish heartily you would when the subject comes before Parliament make a speech shewing the injurious effects of the Corn Laws on the farmers—This would be a great practical good—I am with the greatest respect and regard

Yours most faithfully

J. R. M^cCulloch

[2 ]Addressed: ‘Mr Ricardo’—not passed through the post, being enclosed with the MS of Ricardo’s Notes on Malthus.

MS in R.P.—Letters of McCulloch to Ricardo, VIII.

[3 ]The notes on Malthus’s Ch. vii, Secs. iii and v.

[1 ]Note 25; above, II, 64.

[1 ]Ricardo had sent to McCulloch both the Notes on Say’s Lettres à M. Malthus and the revised passage of the Principles criticising Say’s Traité. See above, p. 315, and below, p. 344–5.

[2 ]Cp. above, VII, 383.

[3 ]Murray’s list of ‘works preparing for immediate publication’ (Monthly Literary Advertiser, 10 Jan. 1821) included Ricardo’s Principles, ‘The Third Edition, corrected, 8vo.’ and Malthus’s Principles of Political Economy, ‘A New Edition, corrected and enlarged, 2 vol. 8vo.’, described as ‘similar to the last Edition of the Essay on Population’. Malthus’s 2nd ed. did not, however, appear in his lifetime.

[4 ]Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica; the article is mostly on the subject of the Usury Laws.