Stuk 117 - William Whewell to Richard Jones

4 pp.

Trinity College - It looks like Lockhart [John Lockhart] at last intends to put WW's review of RJ in the Quarterly Review. The article will hopefully do more good than if WW had written it against Peter [possibly William Peter or Karl L. Peter]: 'Still I should have liked much to have a knock at him for his reasoning in the Edinburgh...We must judge as well as we can whether after this article appears it is needful to answer Peter's puzzles'. WW is inclined to do so since they are the puzzles of an array of people: 'The two main points seem to be the proof that Ricardo, the Ricardians etc not merely mean Ricardian rents, which I suppose can be made out palpably enough: and the proof that McCulloch [J. R. McCulloch] himself has never had any but the most imperfect and incoherent glimpses of the effect of agricultural improvements; and that you have labour up that part in a way which shews the importance and having of it'. WW only talks of such projects for speculations sake. 'I do not know whether you are exactly aware how the young Ricardians will meet your proofs that the increase of rent is owing to improvement'. WW explains how he thinks they will counter RJ's claims.