Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 216.: trower to ricardo1[Answered by 217] - The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 7 Letters 1816-1818

Return to Title Page for The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 7 Letters 1816-1818

216.: trower to ricardo1[Answered by 217] - David Ricardo, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 7 Letters 1816-1818 [1816]

Edition used:

The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 7 Letters 1816-1818.

Part of: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 11 vols (Sraffa ed.)

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


216.

trower to ricardo1
[Answered by 217]

Dear Ricardo—

The object of this letter is to request you will inform me in what light the new clause in Rose’s bill, respecting the investment of the Funds of Provident Institutions in the Commissions of the Sinking Fund, is viewed by the Institutions in London; and whether they feel disposed so to model their plans as to come within the provisions of the Bill should they be adopted by Parliament. It is a very important consideration—No doubt it is highly desirable to secure the Depositors from the probability of loss; and especially as the so doing will be the means of extending more widely the influence of these Institutions. That security, which it was not in the power of the Trustees of Institutions prudently to offer, may, no doubt, be safely afforded by Government. The objection seems to be, that, by so doing, Depositors will not equally feel that they have a stake in the Country the safety of which, in a great degree, depends upon their own good conduct. Upon this moral influence I calculated in our Institutions—It is liable also to abuse, to obviate which it is enacted, that no Institution shall be able to avail itself of the benefits of the Government Investment, the annual payments of whose individual Depositors are allowed to exceed £50. Here comes the question then how far it is worth the while of Institutions framed as ours are, to qualify their Regulations so as to come within the prescribed limitations—I am disposed to think it is—But as I only received the Bill this morning, I have not yet sufficiently considered it. Pray let me know your opinion, what steps your Institutions think of taking, and also our parent Institution at Bath? Is Elwin still in London; if he is pray beg him to write to me on the subject.

The adoption of this measure by Rose is a compleat confession, that he felt the security of repayment of full money offered by his, and similar institutions, could not be complied with; or if not so, where the necessity of calling in the aid of Government? Looking to the universality of these Institutions I am rather disposed to admit the propriety of submitting them, whilst in their infancy, to one general national system—

Huskisson’s clause I entirely disapprove of. It is unnecessary and unadviseable—

Yrs very truly—

Hutches Trower.

NB. Many thanks for your Reports.

[1 ]Addressed: ‘To / David Ricardo Esqr. / Upper Brook Street / Grosvenor Square’.—MS in R.P.