ABSTRACT
John Pullen summarizes his case against my interpretation thus: There is no clear, unambiguous statement of recantation [by Malthus] on the Corn Law. Although Malthus in 1826 recommended a reduction in the level of the duty on imported corn, the textual evidence so far produced [in Hollander 1992; essay 16 in this collection] is, on balance, not sufficiently strong to justify the claim that in his later years he abandoned this agricultural exception to the “great general rule” of free trade’ (Pullen 1995). I am not sure about the ‘on balance’, since Pullen takes exception to every single item of evidence I have brought in support of my case, leaving my pan on the scales quite empty. I shall explain why I am unconvinced by the objections.
