For the nation as a whole,according to Ricardo,it is not the gross produce of the land and labour,as Smith seems to assert,that is of importance,but the net income --the excess,that is,of this produce over the cost of production,or,in otherwords,the amount of its rent and its profits;for the wages of labour,not essentially exceeding the maintenance of thelabourers,are by him considered only as a part of the "necessary expenses of production."Hence it follows,as he himself ina characteristic and often quoted passage says,that,"provided the net real income of the nation be the same,it is of noimportance whether it consists of ten or twelve millions of inhabitants.If five millions of men could produce as much fondand clothing as was necessary for ten millions,food and clothing for five millions would be the net revenue.Would it be ofany advantage to the country that to produce this same net revenue seven millions of men should be required,--that is tosay,that seven millions should be employed to produce food and clothing sufficient for twelve millions?The food andclothing of five millions would be still the net revenue.The employing a greater number of men would enable us neither toadd a man to our army and navy nor to contribute one guinea more in taxes."Industry is here viewed,just as by themercantilists,in relation to the military and political power of the state,not to the maintenance and improvement of humanbeings,as its end and aim.The labourer,as Held (47)has remarked,is regarded not as a member of society,but as a means tothe ends of society,on whose sustenance a part of the gross income must be expended,as another part must be spent on thesustenance of horses.We may well ask,as Sismondi did in a personal interview with Ricardo,"What!is wealth theneverything?are men absolutely nothing!"
On the whole what seems to us true of Ricardo is this,that,whilst he had remarkable powers,they were not the powers bestfitted for sociological research.Nature intended him rather for a mathematician of the second order than for a socialphilosopher.Nor had he the due previous preparation for social studies;for we must decline to accept Bagehot's idea that,though "in no high sense an educated man,"he had a specially apt trailing for such studies in his practice as an eminentlysuccessful dealer in stocks.The same writer justly notices the "anxious penetration with which he follows out rarefiedminutia."But he wanted breadth of survey,a comprehensive view of human nature and human life,and the strong socialsympathies which,as the greatest minds have recognized,are a most valuable aid in this department of study.On a subjectlike that of money,where a few elementary propositions-into which no moral ingredient enters-have alone to be kept inview,he was well adapted to succeed;but in the larger social field he is at fault.He had great deductive readiness and skill(though his logical accuracy,as Mr.Sidgwick remarks,has been a good deal exaggerated).But in human affairs phenomenaare so complex,and principles so constantly limit or even compensate one another,that rapidity and daring in deduction maybe the greatest of dangers,if they are divorced from a wide and balanced appreciation of facts.Dialectic ability is,no doubt,a valuable gift,but the first condition for success in social investigation is to see things as they are.
A sort of Ricardo-mythus for some time existed in economic circles.It cannot be doubted that the exaggerated estimate ofhis merits arose in part from a sense of the support his system gave to the manufacturers and other capitalists in theirgrowing antagonism to the old aristocracy of landowners.The same tendency,as well as his affinity to their too abstract andunhistorical modes of thought,and their eudamonistic doctrines,recommended him to the Benthamite group,and to theso-called Philosophical Radicals generally.Brougham said he seemed to have dropped from the skies-a singular avatar,itmust be owned.His real services in connection with questions of currency and banking naturally created a prepossession infavour of his more general views,But,apart from those special subjects,it does not appear that,either in the form of solidtheoretic teaching or of valuable practical guidance,he has really done much for the world,whilst he admittedly misledopinion on several important questions.De Quincey's presentation of him as a great revealer of truth is now seen to be anextravagance.J.S.Mill and others speak of his "superior lights "as compared with those of Adam Smith;but his work,as acontribution to our knowledge of human society,will not bear a moment's comparison with the Wealth of Nations .
It is interesting to observe that Malthus,though the combination of his doctrine of population with the principles of Ricardocomposed the creed for some time professed by all the "orthodox "economists,did not himself accept the Ricardian scheme.
