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]

403.

ricardo to trower1
[Reply to 397.—Answered by 410]

Gatcomb 26 Nov^r. 1820

My Dear Trower

Hardly a day passes, without some new and extraordinary circumstance occurring, to keep up the agitation in the public mind, respecting the Queen. What could induce ministers to prorogue parliament without finally concluding their proceedings against this persecuted woman? If they thought the bill expedient, why did they not send it to the commons? If they thought a vote of censure necessary, as appears to be your opinion, why not now propose it to parliament. What good can be expected from putting off this question, which so engrosses the public attention, for two months longer, and put it off too in such a manner, by proroguing the parliament without a speech from the throne? Can the Queen do otherwise than court the mob? Has she any hopes of safety from the malignancy of her enemies but in the support of the people. To that she has hitherto been indebted for protection;—without it she would have been crushed by her enemies; and while these proceedings are hanging over her head she will be greatly to blame if she suffers the spirit which has been raised in her favor to subside.

I am glad that you are pleased with the proceedings in the House of Lords stopping where they did. For my part I think they should never have commenced, and never can I consent to hold up my hand to censure or degrade the Queen, with the knowledge I have of the means which have been used to ruin her. If she has had an adulterous connection with Bergami, which I think is by no means proved, never had woman so many reasons of justification to urge in extenuation of her fault. Considering all the circumstances, a veil of oblivion should have been thrown over her conduct, instead of employing the basest means for detecting and proving her guilt. I most heartily join in feelings of indignation against all the Queen’s persecutors, and of compassion for her. Though it is to be lamented that she is the rallying point of the discontented and disaffected—she is absolutely driven to such an alliance, and the only way of detaching her from her present connections is to cease to persecute her.

I very much fear that we shall have no change of ministers, and I am not sanguine, if we have, in my hopes of their adopting the wise measures which you think so essential to our safety, and future prosperity. What ministers, with the present constitution of the House of Commons, can succeed in sweeping away many of our commercial restraints, particularly the greatest, the restraints on the importation of corn? What ministers will dare to encounter our financial difficulties, in the only way in which they should be met, or will seriously commence the work of retrenchment in our expences? We may probably find men who will remove the disabilities from the Roman catholics, and make some amendments in our criminal laws, but this will be all, we must not expect much more improvement, and when we are involved in another war, then will come the time for those efforts which, if we were wise, we ought to make now.

I am glad to find that you do not think our difference great on the question which we have lately been discussing.—I fully expected that we should approximate in our opinions when we came fully to understand each other. I have been lately employed in writing notes on Mr. Malthus work, with a view to defend my opinions, when fairly attacked—to place them in a true light, when unintentionally mistated—and to detect the fallacies which appeared to me to lurk under the author’s arguments. My task is now ended, but with what success must be left to the judgment of others. The whole might occupy about 150 pages if printed. It is not however probable that I shall publish them, because they are not in an inviting form, and would consequently have few readers. Wherever I have met a passage against which I have an objection to make I have quoted the few first words of it, and then written my comments,—in this way for example Page 1031 “If we were determined &c. &c.” [“]If equal capitals yielded commodities of nearly equal value, there might be some grounds for this argument; but, as from a capital employed in valuable machinery, such as steam engines &c. a commodity of a very different value is obtained, than from a capital of the same value, employed chiefly in the support of labour, it is at once obvious that the one term thought to be the more correct by Mr. Malthus, would be the most incorrect that could be imagined.” This being a short comment I have copied it as a specimen, and you will from it be able to judge how little interest general readers would take in such a performance. I have also added a few comments on M. Say’s letter to Malthus, which I think is written with more self satisfaction than its merit deserves.2 I remember a remark of yours on a passage in Page 128 of Malthus work, and as I fully agree with you in your comments, and you will only have the trouble of reading what I write, I am tempted though it is long to copy what I have said as another specimen of my labours. Page 128. “Though neither of these two objects, &c. &c.”3 “A complete fallacy seems to me to be involved in the whole of this argument. Corn is a variable commodity says Mr. Malthus, and so is labour variable, but they always vary in different directions: if therefore I take a mean between the two, I shall probably obtain a measure of value approaching to the character of invariability. Now is it true? do corn and labour vary in different directions? When corn rises in relative value to labour, labour falls in relative value to corn, and this is called varying in different directions. When cloth rises in price, it rises as compared with gold, and gold falls as compared with cloth; but this does not prove that they vary in different directions, for at the same time gold may have risen as compared with iron, hats, leather and every other commodity except cloth. What then would be the fact? that they had varied in the same direction;—gold may have risen 10 pc. in value compared with all things but cloth, and cloth may have risen 25 pc. compared with all things, excepting with gold, relatively to which it would have risen only 15 pc. We should think it strange in these circumstances to say that we should in chusing a measure of value take a mean between cloth and gold because they varied different ways, when it is absolutely demonstrable that they have varied the same way. This is however what Mr. Malthus has done in respect to corn and labour. A country finds increasing difficulties in supplying the corn necessary for a continually increasing population, and in consequence corn rises as compared with all other commodities. As corn rises, which forms so material an article of consumption to the labourer, though not the only one, labour also rises, but not so much as corn;—if corn rises 20 pc. labour may probably rise 10 pc. In these circumstances, estimated in corn, labour appears to have fallen—estimated in labour corn appears to have risen, but it is evident that they have both risen though in different degrees for they will both be more valuable estimated in all other commodities. A mean then is taken between two commodities which are confessedly variable, and it is taken on the principle that the variation of one, corrects the effects of the variation in the other; as however I have proved that they vary in the same direction, I hope Mr. Malthus will see the expediency of relinquishing so imperfect, and so variable a standard. From Mr. Malthus’ argument in this place, one would suppose that labour fell when corn rose, and consequently that with a given quantity of iron, leather, cloth &c. &c., more labour would be obtained; the contrary is the fact; labour as well as corn rises as compared with these commodities. Mr. Malthus says so himself in Page 125 ‘In the progress of improvement and civilization it generally happens, that when labour commands the smallest quantity of food, it commands the greatest quantity of other commodities,’ what is this but saying that when a great quantity of other commodities is given for food, a great quantity of other things is also given for labour; or in other words that when food rises, labour rises?” I would not have troubled you with this if it imposed any heavier task on yo[u than]1 reading it.

I have not seen Godwin’s answer to Malthus. Mill writes to me that it is a most contemptible performance.2

I send you my article on the Sinking Fund. Tell me freely your opinion of it.

I believe they have lowered the price of labour here, but I, as a gentleman I suppose always pay the same. Mrs. Ricardo unites with me in kind regards to Mrs. Trower. Believe me

Ever my d^r. Trower Y^rs. truly

David Ricardo

My man filled my lamp too full of oil I have let 3 drops fall on the first sheet pray take it with all its imperfections.

[1 ]Addressed: ‘Hutches Trower Esqr. / Unsted Wood / Godalming’, and franked by Ricardo ‘November Twenty seven’.

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

[1 ]Above, II, 74.

[2 ]See above, p. 301, n. 2.

[3 ]Above, II, 96.

[1 ]MS torn.

[2 ]Above, p. 291–2.