The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations
• 437.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 435.—ANSWERED By 445]
• 438.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 441]
• 439.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 474]
• 440.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 442]
• 441.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 438.—ANSWERED By 448]
• 442.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 440.—ANSWERED By 443]
• 443.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 442.—ANSWERED By 444]
• 444.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 443.—ANSWERED By 455]
• 445.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 437.—ANSWERED By 447]
• 446.: Say to Ricardo1[reply to 430.—ANSWERED By 488]
• 447.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 445.—ANSWERED By 456]
• 448.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 441.—ANSWERED By 449]
• 449.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 448.—ANSWERED By 450]
• 450.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 449.—ANSWERED By 453]
• 450a.: Place to Ricardo1[answered By 451]
• 451.: Ricardo to Place1[reply to 450a]
• 452.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 453.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 450]
• 454.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 455]
• 455.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 444 & 454.—ANSWERED By 458]
• 456.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 447.—ANSWERED By 461]
• 457.: Ricardo to Wheatley1
• 458.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 455.—ANSWERED By 459]
• 459.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 458.—ANSWERED By 460]
• 460.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 459.—ANSWERED By 462]
• 461.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 456.—ANSWERED By 466]
• 462.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 460.—ANSWERED By 463]
• 463.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 462.—ANSWERED By 467]
• 464.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 469]
• 465.: Tooke to Ricardo1
• 466.: Trower to Ricardo3[reply to 461.—ANSWERED By 471]
• 467.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 463.—ANSWERED By 468]
• 468.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 467]
• 469.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 464.—ANSWERED By 470]
• 470.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 469]
• 471.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 466.—ANSWERED By 478]
• 472.: Ricardo to Mcculloch 2
• 473.: Ricardo to Mill1
• [enclosure: Ricardo’s Notes On Mill’s Elements of Political Economy]
• 474.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 436 & 439.—ANSWERED By 476]
• 475.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2
• 476.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 474.—ANSWERED By 479]
• 477.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo1
• 478.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 471.—ANSWERED By 481]
• 479.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 476.—ANSWERED By 483]
• 480.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 483]
• 481.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 478]
• 482.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 483.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 479 & 480.—ANSWERED By 484]
• 484.: Mcculloch to Ricardo3[reply to 483.—ANSWERED By 486]
• 485.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 486 & 491]
• 486.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 484 & 485.—ANSWERED By 495]
• 487.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 488.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 446.—ANSWERED By 496]
• 489.: Ricardo to Foster2
• 490.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 491.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 485.—ANSWERED By 495]
• 492.: Ricardo to Trower2
• 493.: Ricardo to Hodgson1
• 494.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1
• 495.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 486 & 491.—ANSWERED By 497]
• 496.: Say to Ricardo2[reply to 488]
• 497.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[reply to 495]
• 498.: Say to Ricardo1
• 499.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 500.: Ricardo to [cowell]1
• 501.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 502.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[answered By 510]
• 503.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 504]
• 504.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 503]
• 505.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 506.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 507.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 508.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 509.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 510.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2[reply to 502.—ANSWERED By 511]
• 511.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[reply to 510.—ANSWERED By 514]
• 512.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 513.: Ricardo to Malthus3
• 514.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2[reply to 511.—ANSWERED By 515]
• 515.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[reply to 514]
• 516.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 517.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 518.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 520]
• 519.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2extract of a Letter From Paris
• 520.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 518]
• 521.: Ricardo to Goldsmid2
• 522.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 523.: Ricardo to Malthus3
• 524.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[answered By 526]
• 525.: Ricardo to Grote1
• 526.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 524]
• 527.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 533]
• 528.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1
• 529.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 530.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 541]
• Blake to Mcculloch1
• 531.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 532]
• 532.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 531.—ANSWERED By 536]
• 533.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 527.—ANSWERED By 547]
• 534.: Trower to Ricardo2[answered By 535]
• 535.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 534.—ANSWERED By 547]
• 536.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 532.—ANSWERED By 540]
• 537.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 539]
• 538.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 541]
• 539.: Mill to Ricardo3[reply to 537.—ANSWERED By 548]
• 540.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 536.—ANSWERED By 542]
• 541.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 530 & 538.—ANSWERED By 543 & 544]
• 542.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 540.—ANSWERED By 545]
• 543.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 541]
• 544.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 541.—ANSWERED By 546]
• 545.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 542.—ANSWERED By 550]
• 546.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 544]
• 547.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 533 & 535.—ANSWERED By 549]
• 548.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 539]
• 549.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 547.—ANSWERED By 551]
• 550.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 545]
• 551.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 549.—ANSWERED By 553]
• 552.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 553.: A. Austin to Trower1[reply to 551]
• 544.: A. Austin to Trower2
• 555.: Mill to Mcculloch1

481.

ricardo to trower1
[Reply to 478]

Gatcomb Park 25 Jan^y. 1822

My Dear Trower

This day week I shall leave Gatcomb for London, and shall soon after enter with all my energies on my parliamentary duties. I expect that the Agricultural question will occupy a great deal of attention, and I am not without my fears that some injudicious measures may be adopted, in consequence of the general prevalence of error on that important subject. I have read with attention all that has been said at the different meetings, and although I think I see a decided improvement in the public mind on the policy of corn laws, yet it appears to me that very few take a rational and scientific view of the origin of the distress, and of the true means of remedying it. They all concur in attributing the want of a remunerating price to enormous taxation, in which opinion I cannot agree; although I am willing to allow that an immediate repeal of some of the taxes which affect agricultural produce, would materially relieve the farmer. There is an interval between the repeal of a tax which falls indirectly on a commodity, and the fall of the price of such commodity, that is favorable to the producer, and the benefit of this interval would be enjoyed by farmers. It might, if the distress is owing to temporary causes, be sufficiently long to enable them to surmount the difficulty which immediately presses upon them, it would however be quite unscientific therefore to say that it was the burthen of taxation which was the cause of the low price of corn. The cause of the low price is nothing else but the supply exceeding the demand. Why it should do so now, and why it should have done so for 2 years back is an interesting enquiry, and many may have their different theories to account for it. When I say the cause of the low price is nothing else than the supply exceeding the demand, I am not quite correct, for I appear to exclude the alteration in the value of the currency as one of the causes, which I am not desirous of doing. To that cause I ascribe an effect of 10 pc. and in so doing I am making a liberal allowance. I perceive that a meeting of your county is called to consider this subject—I hope you will do, what you are so well able to do, express your own correct views on this most important question, and not let the reveries of a Webb Hall,1 and the exaggerated, and often wicked, statements of a Cobbett, pass every where uncontradicted2 . I shall look to the public papers with great interest for a full and correct account of your speech.

I agree with much of what you say about Ireland, but on some points we differ. I think it desirable that small farms, and small tenancies, should be got rid of, but I do not look upon these, and many other3 things which might be advantageously corrected in Ireland, as the cause of the evils under which that unfortunate country groans, but as the effect of those evils. If Ireland had a good system of law—if property was secure—if an Englishman lending money to an Irishman could by some easy process oblige him to fulfill his contract, and not be set at defiance by the chicanery of sheriffs agents in Ireland, capital would flow into Ireland, and an accumulation of capital would lead to all the beneficial results which every where follows4 from it. The most economical processes would be adopted—small farms would be laid into large—there would be an abundant demand for labour, and thus would Ireland take her just rank among nations. The evils of Ireland, I, in my conscience believe, arise from misrule, and I hope that during the administration of Lord Wellesley a commencement will be made in the reformation of the enormous abuses under which that country labours. Hume I believe means to attack the Tithe system of Ireland in the House of Commons.5 I do not know whether he is sufficiently skilful to meddle with so intricate a subject advantageously, but he will not fail I think to do some good. The oftener that abuses of all kinds are stated and discussed the better; it sets able heads to work, and the people become informed as to their real interests. This reacts on the Government, and thus abuses, even on our present imperfect system, are often finally redressed.

You will have received Mill’s article on Government, which I sent you many days ago.1 —You will not approve of it, but I think it an excellent article, and well reasoned throughout. Since writing that article he has written two others for the Supplement to the Encyclopedia which are I think both very good—one is on Jurisprudence, the other on the Liberty of the Press.2 If you cannot conveniently get the Encyclopedia, I can lend you the articles, as I have one copy of each in London, and I think you will like to read them.

I am not a good judge of his book on Political Economy, I have thought so much on the subject myself, that I can form a very inadequate idea of the impression which his work is calculated to make on one who is a learner, but I am told by learners that it is very clear, and fully accomplishes the object which he professes to have in view.

I received some months ago a letter from M Say in answer to my last observations on his book, to which I intend very shortly to send him my reply. You will probably like to see both his letter and my answer3 —I will shew them to you when I see you in London.

The reviews of Godwin’s work both in the Quarterly and Edinburgh were I think very good;—surely in the minds of all reasonable men the principle for which Malthus contends is fully established.

I continue to hear, from time to time, from Mr. MCulloch; he is a zealous advocate for the correct principles of Polit. Economy and is more actively employed in their dissemination than any individual I know. Besides the excellent articles which he writes in the Supp^t to the Encyclopedia, in the Edinburgh Review, and the Scotsman, he gives lectures on Polit. Economy in Edinburgh, and contemplates the extending them next year to a general instead of a private class—this is as it should be, notwithstanding the wise observations of Lord John Russell on the little advantages to be derived from a knowledge of this science, in his letter to the Electors of Huntingdon.1

Mrs. Ricardo joins with me in kind remembrances to Mrs. Trower. Believe me My dear Trower

Ever most truly yours

David Ricardo

I hope we shall see you very soon in London.

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

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

[1 ]George Webb Hall, Chairman of the Agricultural Association, was organizing petitions and addressing meetings all over the country in support of extreme measures for the protection of agriculture.

[2 ]Replaces ‘unrefuted’.

[3 ]‘evils, as the’ is del. here.

[4 ]Replaces ‘flows’.

[5 ]See Hansard, N.S., VI, 136 (7 Feb. 1822) and VII, 1147 ff. (19 June 1822).

[1 ]The Article Government, Reprinted from the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Traveller Office, May 5, 1821. Ricardo’s copy of this reprint is in the Goldsmiths’ Library of the University of London.

[2 ]The Article Liberty of the Press, Reprinted from the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Innes, printer, London, no date. Ricardo’s copy is in the Goldsmiths’ Library.

[3 ]Letters 446 and 488.

[1 ]‘There is a party amongst us, however, distinguished in what is called the Science of Political Economy, who wish to substitute the corn of Poland and Russia for our own. Their principle is, that you ought always to buy where you can buy cheapest....They care not for thedifference between an agricultural and manufacturing population in all that concerns morals, order, national strength and national tranquillity. Wealth is the only object of their speculation; nor do they much consider the two or three millions of people who may be reduced to utter beggary in the course of their operations. This they call diverting capital into another channel. Their reasonings lie so much in abstract terms, their speculations deal so much by the gross, that they have the same insensibility about the sufferings of a people, that a General has respecting the loss of men wearied by his operations....Political economyis now the fashion; and the Farmers of England, are likely, if they do not keep a good look out, to be the victims.’ (A cutting of this letter of Lord John Russell, from the Morning Chronicle of 18 Jan. 1822, was found in the pocket-book used by Ricardo on his Continental tour, in R.P.)