definition is carefully qualified as the author develops his subject. Without following him through the amplification of his favorite theme, let me make a single quotation, showing not only the trend of the "Ricardian theory," but also the literary style of the banker turned political economist. Historically viewing the subject, he

says:

"On the first settling of a country, in which there is an abundance of rich and fertile land, a very small proportion of which is required to be cultivated for the support of the actual population, there will be no rent; for no one would pay for the use of land, when there was an abundant quantity not yet appropriated; and, therefore, at the disposal of whosoever might choose to cultivate it. On the common principles of supply and demand, no rent could be paid for such land. . . . If all land had the same properties, if it were unlimited in quantity, and uniform in quality, no charge could be made for its use, unless where it possessed peculiar advantages of situation. It is only, then, because land is not unlimited in quantity and uniform in quality and because, in the progress of population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the use of it. When, in the

progress of society, land of the second degree of fertility is taken into cultivation, rent immediately commences on that of the first quality, and the amount of that rent will depend on the difference in the quality of these two portions of land. When land of the third quality is taken into cultivation, rent immediately commences on the second, and it is regulated as before, by the difference in their productive powers. At the same time, the rent of the first quality will rise, for that must always be above the rent of the second, by the difference between the produce which they yield with a given quantity of capital and labor. It often and indeed commonly happens that before the inferior lands are cultivated, capital can be employed more productively on those lands which are already in cultivation. In such case,

capital will be preferably employed on the old land, and will equally create a rent, for rent is always the difference between the produce obtained by the employment of two equal quantities of capital and labor."

In a letter to his friend and fellow banker, Hutches Trower, dated February 5, 1816, Ricardo takes up the then mooted question of savings banks, unhesitatingly giving his opinion that they are "excellent institutions and calcu

lated to improve the condition and morals of the poor, provided they are properly managed." His fear is that they would "at first be established by gentlemen of great respectability and fortune;" but that as they spread they would "at last be undertaken by speculative tradesmen, as a business from which to derive profit"! He anticipates future legislation by urging that "the poor should have some check on the employment of the funds, or the same evils will arise as from the indefinite multiplication of country banks."

He later expresses the hope that his friend's efforts, backed by himself, also by Hume, Malthus, Wilberforce and others, may prove successful in establishing a savings bank in the west end of London. He adds: "Their general diffusion in all parts of the Kingdom will be of great service, if the rich and well informed will continue to bestow some attention on them. They will tend to introduce economy and forethought among the poor," which trend "may in time check the propensity to a too abundant population, the great source from whence all the miseries of the poor flow in so profuse a stream."

This Malthusian suggestion is in part accounted for by the circumstance, also mentioned in the letter,—that Malthus had been his guest for several days.

In a letter of July 15, 1816, Ricardo speaks of the successful founding of a savings bank in Westminster. That this enterprise was to Ricardo not a mere "flyer," or "side line," is evident from a letter to Trower dated December 10, 1817, in which he speaks of his activity in the formation and early management of the bank. "I was the only one practically acquainted with such institutions and therefore my services have been much more highly appreciated than they deserved." Here we have in outline a picture of Ricardo's pioneer work among London workingmen. He says:

"We give a half penny per month for every 13s. In six weeks we have received about £1,100, which may be said to be tolerably successful, but we understand that a strong prejudice exists among the manufacturing classes against us. They think that we have some sinister object-that we wish to keep wages down. Time and good temper will overcome this feeling and convince the prejudiced how that the rich have no other personal object in view excepting the interest which every man must feel in good government,—and in the general prosperity."

O

V

WILLIAM BARNES RHODES

1772-1826.

F the thousands who, a half-century and more ago, laughed immoderately over the

then popular burlesque, "Bombastes Furioso," few can now recall the name of the author. This rhythmical burlesque on Greene's sixteenth-century tragedy, "Orlando Furioso," was written by William Barnes Rhodes, a clerk in the Bank of England. The play was first produced with the famous comedian, Liston, in the title role, with the equally famous Mathews as the King. Furioso is a rival of his King for first place in the affections of a fickle and worldly-minded maid. The simple logic of his rival: "But he's a general and I'm a King," has its effect. In a fit of the blues the worsted lover removes his boots from his feet and hangs them on a tree, writing upon a scrap of paper these words:

Who dares this pair of boots displace

Must meet Bombastes face to face.

He pins the challenge to his boots and sits down to await results, exclaiming:

Thus do I challenge all the human race!