ABSTRACT
Thomas Robert Malthus, it is universally known, opted for agricultural protection in the great Corn Law debates at the close of the Napoleonic Wars. He was the only major economist to do so and has been regarded ever since as something of an anomaly. This essay reports a finding that seems to remove the anomaly-the apparent fact that Malthus as early as 1824 withdrew his support for the prohibitory Corn Laws. The episode lends credence to his persistent claim that his original protectionism was not designed to defend the Class Interests of landowners but reflected rather his perception of the National Interest-a perception which required modification with the beginning of the end of the old Commercial System and in the light of the actual experience of industrial buoyancy. The volte face entailed a profound reorientation of analytical perspective, amounting to renunciation of support for balanced growth and self-sufficiency in food in favour of industry-based growth-the Ricardian position. An Historiographical Addendum addresses Malthus’s failure to correct the oversight of his contemporaries who were unaware of the change. This discussion also throws light on the puzzling neglect by scholars of the numerous statements by Malthus indicating an abandonment of agricultural protectionism.1
