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

499.

ricardo to trower1

London 20 May 1822

My Dear Trower

I will follow your advice and take care not to expose myself to the resentment of the Farmers when Parliament breaks up. If they knew their own interest well they would feel no resentment against me, because the measures which I have proposed2 would make their trade a much more secure one than it can be under the operation of the present, or of the amended, law. I believe it will be a good time at the end of the Session to put in execution a project which I have long entertained, of making a short tour with my family on the Continent. I shall probably go as far as Switzerland, and after an absence of a couple of months seek my own retirement in Gloucestershire. My constant attendance in the House, and the little anxiety which the part I have taken on the Corn question naturally has excited makes a little rest and recreation necessary—I think I shall enjoy my journey, and shall improve my health by it.—

Mr. Huskisson and I did not exactly join our forces; he abandoned his resolutions in the Committee, and I adopted those of them which laid down the correct principles, and added to them my own practical measure, which I argued was more consonant with his principles than the one which he recommended. Lord Althorp proposed a permanent duty of 20/- on the importation of Wheat, and a permanent drawback of 18/- on the exportation of Wheat, which was supported by Brougham. On what principle either the proposer or supporter of such resolutions could proceed I know not, nor have either of them ventured to expound it to the House.

You have no doubt seen Mr. Turner’s Pamphlet1 —he sent it to me with a very kind note, hoping he said that it was written in the fair spirit of criticism. On that score I have nothing to complain of, but he has failed to convince me of a single error in principle in the work which he attacks. Is it not strange that a writer in the present day should say that rent is a cause of high price and not the effect of it?

“The extra rents to the landlord are not the measure of the whole loss sustained by the public in consequence of the Corn law,” says M’Culloch,2 and to this doctrine you demur. I apprehend he means to say that the loss to the country is a real one. It must not be supposed that because the landlords get a high price, which is paid by the consumer, the whole inconvenience to the country is an improper and unjustifiable transfer of property—it is much more than this, the landlord does not gain what the consumer loses—there is a real diminution of production, and the real loss is to be measured by such diminution of production, without any regard to price or value.

I sent you a copy of Mr. Scarlett’s bill1 —that of Mr. Courtenay2 is not yet printed.

Mrs. Ricardo and I were sorry not to see you on the last evening you were in London, but we acknowledge that your charge was too important to be neglected.

The South Sea Plan3 has failed so I need say nothing on that point. We shall see what ministers will do to raise the £2,200,000 p^r ann^m.—

I wish you were in the House to give me support in attacking the fallacious arguments for monopolies and restricted trade which are daily brought forward. I do my best, but that is bad enough:—it is difficult to express oneself in terms sufficiently familiar to be understood by those who either understand nothing on these subjects, or who have imbibed prejudices to which they obstinately adhere. I am a very bad speaker, and am sorry to say I do not improve—I have not one good supporter; there are some who understand the subject but they are on the ministerial bench, and dare not always speak as they think.—

Very truly Y^rs

David Ricardo

[1 ]MS at University College, London.—Letters to Trower, LVII.

[2 ]Ricardo’s Resolutions on Foreign Corn, above, V, 158–9.

[1 ]Considerations upon the Agriculture, Commerce, and Manufactures of the British Empire; with Observations on the Practical Effect of the Bill of the Right Hon. Robert Peel, for the Resumption of Cash Payments by the Bank of England; and also upon the Pamphlet lately published by David Ricardo, Esq., entitled, Protection to Agriculture. By Samuel Turner, F.R.S., London, Murray, 1822.

[2 ]Edinburgh Review, Feb. 1822, Art. VI, ‘Agricultural Distress—Causes—Remedies’, pp. 474–6 (in substance).

[1 ]To amend the Poor Laws.

[2 ]Relating to Gaols, Bridewells and Houses of Correction, presented in the House of Commons on 13 May 1822.

[3 ]The South Sea Company had at first been willing to take up the annuities to be issued for the Naval and Military Pensions but subsequently changed their mind. (See above, V, 160 and 191 and Hansard, N.S., VII, 784.)