... 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 quantity 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 anticipated 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 quantity
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 assumption 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
pass 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 quantity 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 shifted to the consumers.