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]

323.

ricardo to mill1
[Reply to 322.—Answered by 325]

Gatcomb Park 9 Sep 1819

My dear Sir

I am to kiss the rod, and take myself seriously to my task! And do you really expect such obedience? I am inclined to shew you a little of my democratic spirit, and tell you plainly that I will not be an author on compulsion, but when I reflect that you have always been a good master and guide to me—that it is to your encouragement that I am indebted for the gratification which my vanity has experienced as an author, I am induced to pause, and not at once rush into open rebellion. If my reasons have not satisfied you, neither have yours removed my objections. I can not agree to enter into any engagement with Mr. Napier to furnish the article required for the Encyclopedia, but I will use my best endeavors to write it. We must both be free as air. He shall himself be convinced, however humiliating to me, that I am not equal to the performance of the task, and he shall be at liberty to reject my work altogether, or to take any ideas from it which may appear to him worth his attention. You must not give him the idea that I can do any thing which he is afterwards to publish, and I confess I should feel more satisfaction if I knew that some other person had undertaken it.

I am not well aware of what I am to do. A history of the Sinking Fund! What has been already done in the work itself on that subject?—I have not my copy here, and cannot send for the particular volume as I do not know under what word the subject is treated. In Rees’ Cyclopedia1 under the head “Funds” there is an account of the first establishment, and progress of the Sinking Fund; may I depend on the accuracy of that account, and shall I state the same facts in my own words? To me it appears of little consequence to enter into minute details of the state of the fund before 1784, when Mr. Pitt first took it in hand. With respect to the facts concerning this fund I believe there is a great deal of information in Hamilton’s book2 which I have here, and I expect to meet with much more in the Parliamentary History and Debates, which I have also got here. It would have been of some advantage to me to have been able to consult the annual accounts of finance laid before the House of Commons, but that I cannot do without going to London. If you should think of any book to which I might refer for instruction pray send it to me, and give me your opinion of the sort of arrangement which you think most desirable. Tell me also how long the article should be. Rees has said all he had to say in 4 pages. Will it be necessary for me to go into the subject much more at length?

I came home on tuesday, but at Smith’s earnest request I went over to him again yesterday, and came back at night. We had many discussions on the subject of reform, and I was glad to find that Whishaw conceded so much to me, respecting the non representation of the people in Parliament, as really to give up the whole question. He of course clung to the favorite position of the Whigs that without nomination in some instances the most distinguished talent would be shut out from the House of Commons, which I did not fail to combat to the best of my ability. I pressed him upon the subject of whig reform which in fact is no reform at all, as it proposes to secure to the aristocracy a majority against the people. Some may wish to extend the suffrage more than others, but the test of sincerity is whether they will allow a majority in Parliament to be bona fide the representatives of the interests of the people. On the whole Whishaw was much more of a reformer than he ever appeared to me to be before, and seemed to lament that the Aristocracy were so determined not to yield any thing to their adversaries, he thought the consequences might be serious of the determined resolution of the two violent parties in this contest.

Mr. Mac Donnell, a young Irishman, spoke with admiration of the increased, and increasing knowledge of the people, and he, I am sure is a sincere advocate for at least such a reform as may give to the good sense of the people the choice of their representatives. Previously to our conversation we had been enumerating the different members of the Duke of Beaufort’s family who were in Parliament, and all had expressed indignation at the invariable custom which appears to have prevailed in that family for many generations of palming the younger sons of it on the Public. This was not a bad exemplification of the evils of our present system, as it shewed that the public interest was sacrificed to secure votes in Parliament.—

Mr. Smith has an excellent collection of pamphlets published at the time of the sittings of the “Friends of the

People”. One caught my attention to which there was no author’s name printed, but to which he had put Mackintosh’s name as the writer. It is a Letter to Mr. Pitt on his Apostacy from the cause of Reform,1 and might with great propriety be now addressed to himself. Smith could not recollect his authority for putting Mackintosh’s name to it, and Whishaw had no recollection of his having written such a pamphlet. Whishaw read it and is now sure that it was written by Mackintosh. There are two or three very strong and able points in it, in answer to the most popular objections to Reform, and when Smith urged these objections in our argument, I opened the book and read the triumphant answers to them. One was that bad as our parliament was in theory it worked well, and therefore it would be unwise to meddle with it. That argument was urged by Pitt in 1792 when the nation was at Peace and prosperous, and then received its proper answer, which can now not be more justly, but more forcibly applied to it. Did you ever see this pamphlet? An old Lady2 a relation of Mrs. Smith a clever woman enthusiastically attached to the Whigs listened to our discussion with the greatest interest and attention. She has been accustomed to think that the Whigs are the steady supporters of the liberties, and best interests of the people. She told me she agreed in all the opinions I had given in favor of Reform and always thought those were the opinions of the Whigs. I believe her faith in Whig virtue and patriotism is very much shaken by our arguments.

I am exceedingly concerned at what you hint concerning Brougham’s health—I hope that your fears are unfounded and that he may not be another added to the list of able men whose services have been denied to their country by the visitation of one of the most calamitous diseases which afflicts our nature.—

Ever truly Y^rs

David Ricardo

Do you know where I could get D^r. Price’s work on the sinking fund.1 Hamilton has really done what Mr. Napier wants, why does he not copy his book? If I write I must quote largely from it. Is there any objection to doing so.

[1 ]MS in Mill-Ricardo papers.

[1 ]The Cyclopaedia, by Abraham Rees, 1819.

[2 ]Robert Hamilton, An Inquiry concerning...the National Debt, 3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1818.

[1 ]London, 1792.

[2 ]Mrs Chandler; see below, p. 75.

[1 ]Richard Price, D.D., An Appeal to the Public on the Subject of the National Debt, London, Cadell, 1772.