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]

205.

ricardo to trower1
[Reply to 203.—Answered by 209]

London 24 Feb 1817

Dear Trower

Mr. Rose you will have seen has himself answered your questions concerning his proposed measures for regulating Provident Institutions, by the introduction of his bill into the House of Commons, which I believe does not in any material point, differ from that of last year. It retains the clause respecting giving parish relief to contributors, notwithstanding they may have funds in the Bank, which I apprehend will not be suffered to pass without opposition. I am glad to find that we do not differ with respect to the pernicious tendency of the poor laws.—we both wish to see them amended or abolished, but I believe are not quite agreed on the means of obtaining so salutary an end. If I thought with you that the clause in question was calculated to afford great encouragement to the poor to become depositors in these Institutions, I should be friendly to it. My apprehension from its continuing is more that it will not diminish the poor rates than that it will cause any addition to them. There are as you observe two classes of labourers, the single and the married. Notwithstanding that the tendency of the poor laws is to reduce the wages of these classes to2 the least possible amount on which single men can live, yet this effect is not probably fully accomplished. If it were, neither the single man, who receives no relief from the parish, nor the married man who does, could possibly become depositors, for they would have nothing to deposit. We must suppose then that the single men receive more than their wants require. Our object is to encourage them to accumulate what they can save from their wages, and the question is what effect the insertion or omission of this clause will have on their minds. You think that the chances of poverty are so constantly before their eyes, and that it appears so probable that they may themselves fall into that state, that they would have no motive to acquire property if the possession of property precluded them from receiving relief. I on the contrary maintain that after expending on their own wants the property they had acquired they would be in no worse situation for having acquired it. This of course you would allow, but I am of opinion that the chances of a reverse of fortune are always considerably undervalued by all of us, and therefore that the fear of falling into poverty can have very little influence on the mind of any man whose wages are such as to enable him to save a part of his earnings. The only good that the most sanguine can expect from these Institutions is the withdrawing of this class from the influence of the poor rates and thus by diminishing the number of paupers introduce [more]1 independent feelings. You will accomplish this object most surely if you take security for the permanence of a man’s good habits. Exclude the clause he will know that to preserve his treasure he must be saving and prudent; insert it he will as surely know that he may indulge in a week or month’s dissipation without infringing on it. I am not so sanguine as many as to the excellent effects which are to follow from these Banks unless we at the same time raise the general rate of wages by confining the operation of the poor laws to cases of extreme necessity. We are I think beginning at the wrong end. Every thing would go on well if we could rescue the lowest labourers with families from an habitual reliance on the rates. By so doing we should better the condition of all above that class and then these Institutions would become powerful auxiliaries. As it is they may introduce better habits amongst a few who now lavish their money away in idleness and extravagance, but in the other case the field would be extended, and the result gratifying to every friend of the poor and to the cause of good government. These rates are a yawning gulph in which all that is valuable will be ultimately swallowed. I hope Mrs. Trower continues in good health. Pray make Mrs. Ricardos and my compl^ts. to her.

Ever yours

David Ricardo1

[1 ]Addressed: ‘Hutches Trower Esqr. / Unsted Wood / Godalming / Surry’.

MS at University College, London.—Letters to Trower, XI.

[2 ]‘a perfect’ is del. here.

[1 ]MS torn.

[1 ]On the last sheet of the letter Trower writes: ‘The answer to this argument is that the poor man is liable to difficulties independent of his own foresight and prudence and that he ought to be secured against them by relief if distress should come upon him.’