Part 17 (2/2)

Ricardo and Malthus, however, wear their rue with a difference.

Cobbett reaches his spring-tide level of vituperation in the letter written from Long Island on 6th Feb., and printed in the Political Register for May 8, 1819 (vol. 34, no. 33): 'To Parson Malthus, on the Rights of the Poor and on the cruelty recommended by him to be exercised towards the Poor.'

'Parson, I have during my life detested many men, but never any one so much as you. Your book ... could have sprung from no mind not capable of dictating acts of greater cruelty than any recorded in the history of the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew. Priests have in all ages been remarkable for cool and deliberate and unrelenting cruelty; but it seems to have been reserved for the Church of England to produce one who has a just claim to the atrocious preeminence. No a.s.semblage of words can give an appropriate designation of you; and therefore, as being the single word which best suits the character of such a man, I call you Parson, which amongst other meanings includes that of Borough-monger Tool' (pp.

1019, 1020). He goes on to say he has drawn up a list of 743 obnoxious parsons, who have dared to exclude his Register and 'Paper against Gold' from their parish reading-rooms. 'I must hate these execrable Parsons; but the whole ma.s.s put together is not to me an object of such perfect execration as you, a man (if we give you the name) not to be expostulated with but to be punished'

(1021).

The best commentary on this scurrility may be found in a speech of Ricardo himself (July 1, 1823, on the 'Pet.i.tion of Christian Ministers for free discussion'), where he says that ribald language should always be allowed full publicity, for it 'offends the common-sense of mankind' and can hope to make no serious converts.

LXX.

GATCOMB PARK, _9 Nov., 1819_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

... I shall go to London alone, on the 22nd, and of course I shall continue there until Parliament adjourns for the holidays:--perhaps you may have occasion to visit town during that time, if so, I shall have a bed at your service, and such fare as can be furnished by my factotum in Brook Street.

I am glad that Mr. Whishaw has expressed satisfaction with his very short visit here. I was very much pleased with his company--no one could be more agreeable, nor more disposed to be satisfied with everything about him. We had many conversations on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and I was glad to find that our sentiments accorded much more than I had previously imagined. I should be quite contented with such a reform as Mr. Whishaw was willing to grant us. I am certainly not more inclined than I was before to Radicalism[205], after witnessing the proceedings of Hunt, Watson, and Co., if by Radicalism is meant Universal Suffrage. I fear, however, that I should not think the moderate reform, which you are willing to accede to, a sufficient security for good government. Your scheme of reform, if I recollect right, is as much too moderate as the universal suffrage plan is too violent: something between these would give me satisfaction. Do you think that any great number of the people can really be deluded with the idea that any change in the representation would completely relieve them from their distresses? There may be a few wicked persons who would be glad of a revolution, with no other view but to appropriate to themselves the property of others, but this object must be confined to a very limited number, and I cannot think so meanly of the understandings of those who are well disposed, as to suppose that they sincerely believe a reform in Parliament would give them work, or relieve the country from the payment of the load of taxes with which we are now burthened; neither do I observe in the speeches which are addressed to the mob any such extravagant expectations held out to them. If there were I am sure they know better than to believe the speakers who make such delusive promises. I expect that we shall have a very stormy session of Parliament.

With respect to my calculations, I have only this to say in defence of them, that I never brought them forward for any practical use, but merely to elucidate a principle. It is no answer to my theory to say that 'it is scarcely possible that all my calculations should not be necessarily and fundamentally erroneous,' for that I do not deny; but still it is true that the proportion of produce in agriculture or manufactures, retained by the capitalist who sets the labourers to work, will depend on the quant.i.ty of labour necessary to provide for the maintenance and support of the labourers.

You ask me 'whether, when land is thrown out of cultivation from the importation of foreign corn, I consider the new rate of profits as determined by the state of the land, or the stationary prices of manufactured and mercantile products compared with the fall of wages.'

You have correctly antic.i.p.ated my answer. 'Capital will,' I think, 'be withdrawn from the land till the last capital yields the profit obtained (by the fall of wages) in manufactures, on the supposition of the price of such manufactures remaining stationary.[']

I am glad to hear that your book will be so soon in the press, but I regret that the most important part of the conclusions from the principles which you endeavour to elucidate, will not be included in it, I mean taxation. In a letter which I have lately received from Turner[206], he is full of regret that the important subject of taxation receives so little attention from Political Economists;--at this time he thinks it peculiarly important, and I cannot but agree with him. As soon as you have launched your present work, I hope you will immediately prepare to give us your thoughts on a subject in which [we] are all practically interested.

I have received a letter also very lately from M'Culloch, he has been writing an article on Exchanges for the Ency. Brit., which is very well done, I think; although I cannot agree with one or two of his definitions.

I finished in my hasty way the article I had undertaken to do on the Sinking Fund, and then became so disgusted with it, that I was glad to get rid of it. I have given so many injunctions not to regard my supposed feelings in deciding whether it shall or shall not be published, that I much doubt whether it will ever see the light....

Ever yours, D. RICARDO.

NOTE.--The gap between the above letter (of 9th Nov. 1819) and the following (of 4th May, 1820) may be filled up by a letter of Ricardo to J. B. Say, dated from London, 11th January, 1820 (Oeuvres Diverses, p. 414). After thanking him for a present (which appears from Say's reply to have been a French translation of his 'Pol. Econ. and Taxation') and a letter, he goes on to say: 'I remember hearing you tell me when I saw you in Paris that in each successive edition of our respective works our opinions would approximate to each other more and more, and I am convinced that the truth of the remark will be demonstrated.' Our differences (he goes on) are becoming rather verbal than substantial. Your chapter on Value has in my opinion gained considerably. You misrepresent me, however, on that subject when you say I consider the _value_ of labour to determine the value of commodities; I hold, on the contrary, that it is not the value, but 'the _comparative quant.i.ty of labour_ necessary to production which regulates the relative value of the commodities produced.' Also in regard to Rent, Profits, and Taxation, you do not observe that my reasoning proceeds on the a.s.sumption that there is in every country 'a land which yields no rent, _or_ there is a capital employed on the land with a view to profit merely, and paying no rent for it.' [See 'Pol. Ec. and Tax.' (McC.'s ed.), ch. xii. p. 107.] The latter you pa.s.s over without answer. I forward you the 2nd edition of my book, which 'has nothing new in it, as I have not had the courage to recast it.' He concludes by saying: 'Political Economy is gaining ground. Sounder principles are now brought forward. Your treatise is rightly in the first rank of authorities. The debates in parliament last session were satisfactory to the friends of the science. The true principles of currency are at last recognised. I think that on that point we shall not again go astray. Jeremy Bentham and Mill are well; I saw them a short time ago.'

Say answers (2nd March, 1820) that their controversy would certainly end in agreement, if it were not cut short by death, as a recent fit of apoplexy had made him think probable. He then briefly defends himself against Ricardo's criticisms. How can you (he says) determine the quant.i.ty and quality of the labour except by the price paid to obtain it? As to the two parts of your proposition on Rent, I see no reason for disagreeing with the second when I differ from the first, and I think (with you) that taxation in the second case will be s.h.i.+fted to the consumers.

LXXI[207].

LONDON, _4 May, 1820_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

... I have read your book[208] with great attention. I need not say that there are many parts of it in which I quite agree with you. I am particularly pleased with your observations on the state of the poor; it cannot be too often stated to them that the most effectual remedy for the inadequacy of their wages is in their own hands. I wish you could succeed in ridding us of all the obstacles to the better system, which might be established.

After the frequent debates between us you will not be surprised at my saying that I am not convinced by your arguments on those subjects on which we have long differed. Our differences may in some respects, I think, be ascribed to your considering my book as more practical than I intended it to be. My object was to elucidate principles, and to do this I imagined strong cases that I might show the operation of those principles[209]. I never thought, for example, that practically any improvements took place on the land which would at once double its produce; but, to show what the effect of improvements would be, undisturbed by any other operating cause, I supposed an improvement to that extent to be adopted; and I think I have reasoned correctly from such premises. I am sure I do not undervalue the importance of improvements in agriculture to landlords, though it is possible that I may not have stated it so strongly as I ought to have done. You appear to me to overvalue them; the landlords would get no more rent while the same capital was employed as before on the land, and no new land was taken into cultivation; but, as with a lower price of corn new land could be cultivated and additional capital employed on the old land, the advantage to landlords would be manifest. Because the landlord's corn rent would increase without these conditions, you appear to think he would be benefited; but his additional quant.i.ty of corn would exchange for no more money nor for any additional quant.i.ty of other goods. If labour were cheaper, he would be benefited in as far as he would save on the employment of his gardeners and perhaps some other menial servants, but this advantage would be common to all who had the same money revenue, from whatever source it might be derived. The compliment you pay me in one of your notes[210] is most flattering. I am pleased at knowing that you entertain a favourable opinion of me; but I fear that the world will think, as I think, that your kind partiality has blinded you in this instance.

I differ as much as I ever have done with you in your chapter on the effects of the acc.u.mulation of capital[211]. Till a country has arrived to [_sic_] the end of its resources from the diminished powers of the land to afford a further increase, [I hold] it to be impossible that there should [be at the] same time a redundancy of capital and of [commodities (?)]. [I] agree that profits may be for a time very l[ow]

<script>