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]

239.

ricardo to trower1
[Reply to 235]

Gatcomb Park 10 Dec^r. 1817

My dear Trower

You make your excuses with so good a grace, that I could not be angry with you if I would, but what perhaps more certainly determines me to shew charity to you, is the necessity I am under of frequently throwing myself on the charitable judgement of others—I shew mercy, that I may receive it.—

We have here, equally with every other part of the country, mourned over the untimely fate of our late princess, and are equally sensible of the great national loss we have sustained. All the Princes of the Royal Blood probably now expect to wield the sceptre in their turn, but the probability is that in this expectation they will be disappointed. It is a singular circumstance that with so many children our old King should not have one grand-child. A writer in the Morning Chronicle whose letter I had not time to read ascribes this to the Royal Marriage Act, and I think the remark well founded. Marriage would be a different thing to all of us, if our partners were selected for us, and were necessarily strangers to our sympathies. I know that there are some good state reasons to be advanced in its defence yet I cannot help thinking that it would be wise not to prevent the younger branches of the family from marrying subjects, either with a view to their own happiness and respectability or to the interests of the country. Our Princes have certainly not refrained from marriage from a consideration of Malthus’ prudential check, and from a fear of producing a redundant Royal population. If they had they would now be actuated by different motives and we might expect that the great demand for Royal infants would be followed by so ample a supply as to occasion a glut.

I have read the report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the Poor Laws with much satisfaction—I am glad to see sound principles promulgated from that quarter, though I should have been still more pleased if they had insisted more strongly on an efficient remedy. On this part of the subject they shew too much hesitation—recommend measures, and then qualify or abandon them. The whole country is feeling the inconvenience of the present system, and will I hope be brought to understand the origin of the evil. All the principal Reviews write well on this subject. In the last number of the British there is a very good review of the Commons’ report, which is worth your reading. In the same number there is also a review of my book,1 in which in every page I am charged with ignorance and absurdity. Yet it is not done in an ungentmanly way, and I have the pleasure to have my friend Malthus associated with me in the censure of having made the subject of rent, which was well explained by Adam Smith, and is perfectly clear, obscure and unintelligible. The writer does not in fact see the important part of the subject—he has read but not studied it. He has kindly left unattacked those points which were most assailable, and has fastened on those which are incontrovertible. My style and arrangement are fortunately for me not mentioned.—A writer in a Scotch paper called the Scotsman has written a short Essay in my vindication, and has I think done it ably, for he has expressed my opinions in much clearer language than I could do it myself.1 To compensate me also for the censure of the Reviewer I have been made acquainted with Lord Grenville’s opinion of my book, which is favourable beyond my expectations. When I go to London I am, at his Lordship’s desire, to be introduced to him. For Lord Grenville’s judgement on matters of Political Economy I have always had the highest respect.2

We have established a Savings Bank in this neighbourhood in the formation of which I have been very active.3 I was the only one practically acquainted with such Institutions and therefore my services have been much more highly appreciated than they deserved. We give a half penny per month for every 13/-. In six weeks we have received about £1100 which may be said to be tolerably successful, but we understand that a strong prejudice exists among the manufacturing classes against us. They think that we have some sinister object—that we wish to keep wages down. Time and good temper will overcome this feeling and convince the prejudiced how that the rich have no other personal object in view excepting the interest which every man must feel in good government,—and in the general prosperity. The success of these Banks would be great if the enormous abuses of the Poor Laws were corrected.

Several other banks have been opened since ours within 15 miles of us, but every where the same prejudice operates against them.

Mill’s book1 waits only for the index to be published. He has from the remarks I have heard him make given me a great desire to read and study it.

Malthus has a volume ready2 which I am also anxious to see, because he expressed in it his views on the subjects on which I have lately written, and which I know differ materially from mine.

I shall be in London in Jan^y., and shall not return again here. I hope soon to meet you. To secure a meeting I ought to kill an East India director, a contested election will follow, and then you will infallibly be brought to town. I am annoyed by the prospect of being Sheriff of our county this next year. Of the 3 named Col^l. Berkeley, son of the late Earl is first and I second. The Col^l. it is said is about to try again for the peerage and therefore it is probable that I may be chosen.

Mrs. Ricardo and my daughter join with me in kind regards to Mrs. Trower, to whom and to you I wish all manner of good.

Very truly Yours

David Ricardo.

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

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

[1 ]British Review, Nov. 1817, Art. XV, a review of Ricardo’s Principles and Say’s Traité.

[1 ]‘Mr. Ricardo and the British Review’, in the Scotsman, 15 Nov. 1817: the writer justifies Ricardo’s assumption of a machine which lasts for a hundred years and works without human assistance as being done merely ‘for the sake of illustrating his general principles’. Cp. the note added in ed. 2, above, I, 60–1. The Scotsman had already reviewed Ricardo’s Principles in its number of 3 May 1817; McCulloch was no doubt the writer in both cases.

[2 ]William Wyndham Grenville, Baron Grenville (1759–1834), Prime Minister in 1806–7. ‘Lord Grenville pushes the principles of political oeconomy of the present school, as far as Ricardo himself’(J. L. Mallet’s MS Diary, 22 Nov.1819).

[3 ]See above, p. 187, n.

[1 ]History of British India.

[2 ]Malthus had said only that he was ‘meditating a volume’ (above, p. 215); his Principles of Political Economy was not ready for the press till the end of 1819.