Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 48.djvu/102

 George Grote ‘so oppressed by any event before’ (, James Mill, p. 211).

Ricardo seems to have been a man of very kindly and attractive nature. His correspondence with Malthus (see below) shows a warm friendship, which was not interrupted by keen discussions of wide differences of opinion. Another correspondence, with McCulloch, from 1816 to 1823 (see below), shows similar qualities, besides containing some interesting remarks upon his parliamentary career, and the differences between himself and his disciple. Mill speaks of twelve years of ‘most delightful intercourse,’ during which he had been the confidant of all Ricardo's thoughts, both upon public and private affairs.

McCulloch says that Ricardo contributed to almost every London charity, and that he supported an almshouse and two schools in the neighbourhood of Gatcombe. He left a widow and seven children. His eldest son, Osman (1795–1881), inherited the estate of Bromesberrow in Gloucestershire, and was M.P. for Worcester 1847–1865. The second, David (1803–1864), M.P. for Stroud Dec. 1832–May 1833, succeeded to Gatcombe, and the third, Mortimer, a captain in the 2nd lifeguards, died in 1876. Of his four daughters, Henrietta married Thomas Clutterbuck, Priscilla and Fanny married two brothers, respectively Anthony Austin and Edward Austin, both of Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire. An engraving from a portrait by J. Phillips is prefixed to his ‘Works.’

Ricardo was the principal founder of what has been called the classical school of political economy. The main doctrines, expounded by McCulloch and James Mill, were accepted by John Stuart Mill, with considerable modifications, in the most authoritative treatise of the next generation. His theory was expounded by De Quincey (De Quincey's writings upon this topic are collected in his Works, vol. ix. 1890), who answered some criticisms by Malthus and [q. v.] Ricardo has been attacked by writers of the historical school for the abstract nature of his writings, while Jevons and others have sharply criticised his theory of value. His letters to McCulloch show that he was himself far from satisfied with his own conclusions. The theory that value is proportional solely to the labour embodied was taken up by Marx and other socialist writers, and applied to consequences which Ricardo would have certainly repudiated. De Quincey, in his ‘Logic of Political Economy,’ has already noticed this application. How far the ‘iron law’ of wages, which is supposed to result from his principles, was regarded by Ricardo himself as a statement of facts, or as a mere postulate for logical purposes, is not clear. Professor Marshall, in his ‘Principles of Economics,’ has discussed Ricardo's views very fully. His ‘rehabilitation’ of Ricardo is discussed by Professor W. J. Ashley in the ‘Economic Journal’ for September 1891. Discussions of Ricardo's theories are contained in all treatises upon the history of the subject.

Ricardo's works are:
 * 1) ‘High Price of Bullion, a proof of the depreciation of Bank Notes,’ 1810.
 * 2) ‘Reply to Mr. Bosanquet's Practical Observations on the Report of the Bullion Committee,’ 1811.
 * 3) ‘Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock,’ 1815.
 * 4) ‘Proposals for an Economical and Secure Currency, with observations on the Profits of the Bank of England,’ 1816.
 * 5) ‘Essay on the Funding System,’ 1820 (in Supplement to ‘Encyclopædia Britannica’).
 * 6) ‘Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,’ 1817, 1819, and 1821. The best edition, with introduction and notes by Professor E. C. K. Gonner, was published in 1891.
 * 7) ‘On Protection to Agriculture,’ 1822.
 * 8) ‘Plan for the Establishment of a National Bank,’ 1824.

Some ‘Observations’ on parliamentary reform were published by McCulloch in the ‘Scotsman’ of 24 April 1824, and are included in the works, as are notes for a speech on the ballot. The collected works, including the above, with a life by McCulloch, first appeared in 1846, and have been reprinted. Letters from Ricardo are included in the ‘Mélanges et Correspondance de J. B. Say,’ 1833. An interesting set of letters to Malthus was edited by Mr. Bonar in 1887. The correspondence with McCulloch has been edited for the American Economical Association by Dr. J. H. Hollander (1896) (see Quarterly Journal of Economics (Boston) of January 1896, and Economic Journal of January 1896). The originals are now in the British Museum (Addit. MS. 34545), where there is also a letter to Bentham of 1811, and some others. A third set of letters (1811–23) to H. Trower, partly in private possession and partly at Univ. Coll., London, was edited by James Bonar and J. H. Hollander (Oxford, 1899, 8vo).

