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]

malthus to sismondi1

E I Coll March 12^th 1821.

Dear Sir

If you knew the inveterate habits of indolence which frequently overcome my best intentions towards my correspondents, and how much in consequence, I am in arrear to my friends in Paris, America, and the East Indies, at this moment I might perhaps indulge in some hope of forgiveness for my delay in answering your very kind communications. As it is, I must appear to you quite inexcusable, and I have only to throw myself on your mercy for pardon: I at first waited for an opportunity of sending a letter to Geneva by a friend and I have often observed that, when the opportunity does not readily occur, there is no knowing how long such a plea for indolence may last.

I can assure you most sincerely that your letter gave me great pleasure. It was very gratifying to me to find that you thought me on the whole successful in my controversy with Mr Ricardo, and that the points on which you differed from me were fewer than I had supposed. I was aware however from the conversations I had the pleasure of having with you at Sir James Mackintosh’s that there were many points of the subject on which we should not disagree, and on that account perhaps I was the more surprised at some observations which I found in your work on the subject of population. But you have explained the source of them. So many misconceptions have been in circulation respecting what I have said in my work on population, that without referring to it, it is very easy to receive impressions, that it contains opinions and doctrines which are not to be found in it.

I have lately been attacked, after a delay of twenty years, by my old antagonist Mr Godwin; but it is a very poor and feeble performance, and the only semblance of an argument in it is founded upon a miscalculation.

The Edinburgh Review has so entirely adopted Mr Ricardo’s system of Political Economy that it is probable neither you nor I shall be mentioned in it. I know indeed that a review of your work was written and sent, but it appears to have been rejected through the influence of the gentleman1 who is the principal writer in the department of Political Economy, and who is known to have adopted fully and entirely all Mr Ricardo’s views. The article however which you have so ably controverted in the sheet you were so good as to send me was written by another convert of the name of Torrens.2 In general however I should say that though Mr Ricardo’s doctrines have certainly captivated some very able men, they are not [? spread]3 very much among the great body of political Economists4 and I am inclined to think that many of them will not stand the tests of examination and experience.

You will be rather pleased to hear that he has altered his opinions on the subject of the effect of machinery on the labouring classes of society, and in a new edition which he is about to publish of his work, will I believe go so far as to say that it may not only for a time, but permanently injure the labourer, although it may increase the neat produce. This is going just as far or perhaps a little farther than I should go, but the view which he takes of the subject is somewhat different.

I am glad to hear that you are preparing a new edition.1 Iamengaged in a similar occupation.

I hope you are right respecting the effects of the equal division of landed property among children, as it seems to be the tendency of Europe at present. It may be excusable in an Englishman to be prejudiced in favour of a different system of property which for so long a time has appeared to be productive of favourable results. There is one part of the economy of Italy which I cannot understand. How does it happen that so many farms are let at half produce, when the difference of their fertility must be very great. The half of the produce which might be easily paid from a rich soil, I should think impossible to be paid from a poor soil.

I am sorry you are not likely to settle in Paris, as I should have had a better chance of seeing you.

Believe me dear Sir with great respect and esteem truly Yours,

T. R. Malthus]

[1 ]Addressed: ‘A Monsr / Mons Simonde de Sismondi / Geneve / Suisse’.—MS in Biblioteca Comunale, Pescia (Tuscany). [Published by P. Jannaccone in Rivista di Storia Economica, 1942, p. 104–5.]

[1 ]Mulloch.

[2 ]The article on Owen in the Edinburgh Review (see above, p. 159, n. 2) contained also a lengthy criticism of Sismondi’s views. Sismondi replied with an article entitled ‘Examen de cette question: Le pouvoir de consommer s’accroit-il toujours dans la société, avec le pouvoir de produire?’ in Annales de Législation et de Jurisprudence, tome 1, 1820, pp. 111–144. He refers to the author of the Edinburgh Review article as ‘le disciple de M. Ricardo’ and remarks: ‘On dit, que le maître luimême l’a approuvé, et que les autres disciples y reconnaissent leur profession de foi la plus claire.’ (p. 112.) It is curious, in view of Malthus’ statement, that in reprinting his article in the 2nd ed. of his Nouveaux principes, 1827, under the new title ‘Examen d’une réfutation des Nouveaux principes d’économie politique, publié dans la Revue d’Edinburgh, par un disciple de M. Ricardo’, he added a footnote identifying the author with MCulloch. (‘J’ai appris depuis que c’était M. Macculloch, qu’on peut regarder désormais comme le chef de l’école fondée par M. Ricardo.’ Vol. ii, p. 376.)

[3 ]Covered by seal.

[4 ]In the article in the Annales referred to above, n. 2, Sismondi had written: ‘Le chef de la nouvelle école, M. Ricardo, a, dit-on, déclaré lui-même qu’il n’y avait pas plus de vingt-cinq personnes en Angleterre qui eussent entendu son livre. Peut-être de ce qu’il a fait profession d’obscurité, est-il résulté que ceux qui l’ont entendu, ou qui ont cru l’entendre, se sont déjà regardés comme des adeptes, et ont apporté un esprit de secte plus obstinéà soutenir, presque exclusivement avec ses propres paroles, tout l’ensemble de son système.’ (p. 112.)

[1 ]Of the Nouveaux principes; the second edition was not published till 1827.