The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations
• 300.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 290 & 299]
• 301.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 302.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 303]
• 303.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 298 & 302]
• 304.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 295.—ANSWERED By 307]
• 305.: Ricardo to Place2
• 306.: Sharp to Ricardo2
• 307.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 304]
• 308.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 309]
• 309.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 308.—ANSWERED By 310]
• 310.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 309.—ANSWERED By 314]
• 311.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 312]
• 312.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 311]
• 313.: Ricardo to Trower2
• 314.: Mcculloch to Ricardo4[reply to 310.—ANSWERED By 315]
• 315.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[reply to 314]
• 316.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 317]
• 317.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 316]
• 318.: Ricardo to Mill2[answered By 319]
• 319.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 318]
• 320.: Mill to Ricardo1
• 321.: Ricardo to Mill4[answered By 322]
• 322.: Mill to Ricardo3[reply to 321.—ANSWERED By 323]
• 323.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 322.—ANSWERED By 325]
• 324.: Malthus to Ricardo2[answered By 328]
• 325.: Mill to Ricardo4[reply to 323.—ANSWERED By 329]
• 326.: Ricardo to Place1
• 327.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 330]
• 328.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 324.—ANSWERED By 338]
• 329.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 325.—ANSWERED By 332 & 337]
• 330.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 327.—ANSWERED By 339]
• 331.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 333]
• 332.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 329]
• 333.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 331.—ANSWERED By 344]
• 334.: Brown to Ricardo1[answered By 336]
• 335.: Brown to Ricardo1[answered By 336]
• 336.: Ricardo to Brown1[reply to 334 & 335]
• 337.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 329]
• 338.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 328.—ANSWERED By 345]
• 339.: Trower to Ricardo3[reply to 330.—ANSWERED By 346]
• 340.: Bentham to Ricardo1
• 341.: Ricardo to Place2
• 342.: Place to Ricardo1[answered By 343]
• 343.: Ricardo to Place1[reply to 342]
• 344.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 333.—ANSWERED By 349]
• 345.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 338]
• 346.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 339]
• 347.: Say to Ricardo1[answered By 352]
• 348.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 349]
• 349.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 344 & 348]
• 350.: Ricardo to Heathfield1
• 351.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 352.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 347.—ANSWERED By 356]
• 353.: Lord Grenville to Ricardo2
• 354.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 355.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 358]
• 356.: Say to Ricardo1[reply to 352]
• 357.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 358.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 355.—ANSWERED By 359]
• 359.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 358.—ANSWERED By 360]
• 360.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 359.—ANSWERED By 361]
• 361.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 360—answered By 366]
• 362.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[answered By 366]
• 363.: Ricardo to Malthus2
• 364.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 365.: Ricardo to Napier1
• 366.: Mcculloch to Ricardo3[reply to 361 & 362.—ANSWERED By 368]
• 367.: Ricardo to Bentham2
• 368.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[reply to 366.—ANSWERED By 372]
• 369.: Bentham to Ricardo5
• 370.: Ricardo to Mill3
• 371.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 373]
• 372.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 368.—ANSWERED By 375]
• 373.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 371.—ANSWERED By 376]
• 374.: Ricardo to Mill2
• 375.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 372.—ANSWERED By 377]
• 376.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 373—answered By 380]
• 377.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 375.—ANSWERED By 381]
• 378.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 379]
• 379.: Ricardo to Malthus2[reply to 378.—ANSWERED By 388]
• 380.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 376.—ANSWERED By 384]
• 381.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 377]
• 382.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 383]
• 383.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 382]
• 384.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 380.—ANSWERED By 387]
• 385.: Mill to Ricardo2[answered By 386]
• 386.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 385.—ANSWERED By 389]
• 387.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 384.—ANSWERED By 390]
• 388.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 379.—ANSWERED By 392]
• 389.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 386.—ANSWERED By 394]
• 390.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 387.—ANSWERED By 391]
• 391.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 390.—ANSWERED By 397]
• 392.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 388.—ANSWERED By 395]
• 393.: Say to Ricardo1[answered By 430]
• 394.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 389.—ANSWERED By 398]
• 395.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 392.—ANSWERED By 402]
• 396.: Grenfell to Ricardo1
• 397.: Trower to Ricardo4[reply to 391.—ANSWERED By 403]
• 398.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 394.—ANSWERED By 400]
• 399.: Mill to Ricardo2[answered By 400]
• 400.: Ricardo to Mill3[reply to 398 & 399]
• 401.: Ricardo to Mccullochcculloch3[answered By 406]
• 402.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 395.—ANSWERED By 404]
• 403.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 397.—ANSWERED By 410]
• 404.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 402.—ANSWERED By 405]
• 405.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 404.—ANSWERED By 408]
• 406.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 401.—ANSWERED By 407]
• 407.: Ricardo to Mccullochcculloch1[reply to 406.—ANSWERED By 412]
• 408.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 405]
• 409.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[answered By 412]
• 410.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 403.—ANSWERED By 415]
• 411.: Malthus to Ricardo2
• 412.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 407 & 409.—ANSWERED By 416]
• 413.: Mill to Ricardo3[answered By 414]
• 414.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 413]
• 415.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 410.—ANSWERED By 419]
• 416.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 412.—ANSWERED By 417]
• 417.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 416.—ANSWERED By 418]
• 418.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 417.—ANSWERED By 421]
• 419.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 415.—ANSWERED By 420]
• 420.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 419]
• 421.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 418.—ANSWERED By 422]
• 422.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 421.—ANSWERED By 424]
• 423.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 426]
• 424.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 422.—ANSWERED By 428]
• 425.: Tooke to Ricardo3
• 426.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 423]
• 427.: Tooke to Ricardo2
• 428.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 424.—ANSWERED By 431]
• Malthus to Sismondi1
• 429.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1
• 430.: Ricardo to Say2[reply to 393.—ANSWERED By 446]
• 431.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 428.—ANSWERED By 433]
• 432.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 433.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 431.—ANSWERED By 434]
• 434.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 433.—ANSWERED By 436]
• 435.: Trower to Ricardo1[answered By 437]
• 436.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 434.—ANSWERED By 474]

300.

ricardo to m^cculloch1
[Reply to 290 & 299]

Gatcomb Park 3 Jan^y. 1819

My dear Sir

I have read with great pleasure the article on currency, for the next Edinburgh Review, which you have been so kind as to send me. It appears to me so able, so clear, so convincing, that I shall be puzzled to account for the obstinate prejudices of those who no doubt will continue to refuse their assent to doctrines so mathematically demonstrated.

Your kindness has again led you to bestow unmerited praise on me. I assure you that I feel very proud of the favourable opinion which you have formed of my speculations.

I have read the article with an endeavour to discover blemishes in it, but excepting on one or two trifling points, not in the least affecting the reasoning, I cannot discover any. Those points are as follows. In page 56 a few lines from the bottom, you say “and if one half the usual supply were brought to market, it (the price of commodities) would be increased one half.” It is evident that you meant they would be doubled in price.2

In page 64 you give your readers reason to infer that the Bank advance the paper issued on occasion of the payment of the interest of the National Debt; now I believe that this never really happens. Certain taxes are pledged to the national creditor, they are paid into the Exchequer, and from the Exchequer to the Bank, and are never for one moment at the disposal of ministers. Your argument however is not affected by this fact; because by means of direct loans, and by the purchase of Exchequer bills in the market with their notes, the Bank and Government together can issue any amount of paper they please besides that which is issued through the means of discounts.—

In page 66 you say “that all the difference that can take place in the value of gold and silver currencies, among nations trading together, will generally be limited to the expense of the transfer of bullion from the one to the other.” This observation is true of the exchange—that can never differ more than this expense, but I do not think that it is equally so of the value of the precious metals. The value or price1 of cloth or of hats may in France be not only so much higher than in England as will pay the expenses and profits of the clothier and hatter who export them, but also the additional expense of conveying the money for which they are sold from France to England. Gold being a commodity is subject to the same rule. I have endeavoured to explain this in my book from Page 1742 to the end of the chapter. It is of little importance in your essay but I am more induced to mention it to you now, as you should guard against a misapprehension in the article on Exchanges which you have it in contemplation to write. And here my observations end. I see no other expression that I can cavil at.

In your quotation from me page 74 you end it by the word “performed ”, on referring to my pamphlet page 253 I find, in my copy which is one of the second edition, the words “they had been so advantageously applied” the first is inaccurate though I may inadvertently have used it.

The subject, of which metal to chuse for the standard, is I think of little importance. On the whole I am quite contented with the present mint regulations, 1^st, because I do not like a change without there is a very manifest advantage in it and 2^dly because it is confidently expected that the introduction of the most perfect machinery known into the silver mines may very considerably lower the value of that metal. If so it is unfit for a standard. The same objections cannot be made to gold.

Lord Lauderdale in his speeches and several writers in the Times have endeavored to shew that if the Bank paid in gold it would all leave the country in consequence of the mint regulations, notwithstanding that g[old] only is a legal tender in payments above 40/-.1 This is very absurd and if you had shown it to be so, I should have been glad, for that is now the plea on which the continuance of the restriction is defended.

If you think I can be of any use to you in looking over the proof sheets of your article on exchanges I shall have great pleasure in doing it, but from what I have already seen you will make it all that it should be. To the best of my recollection Mushet did correct his tables in a subsequent edition.2 I have not his book here.—

I have attended to some of your suggestions for the improvement of my book. I cannot agree with you in thinking so lightly of the extinction of our national debt. I should agree to no other means of getting rid of it, but by paying it, which would relieve us from many of the evils you enumerate, such as the encouragement to gambling &c^a. We agree as to the evil, but not as to the remedy. Having noticed Buchanan in the former edition I cannot now omit making the same references to him, particularly as his objections are popular objections and such as I would wish to answer. I will consult with Murray about introducing a few pages from the pamphlet which you have honoured with your approbation.

Murray sent me for a few days the only copy that was in London of a French translation of my book, with notes by M. Say.1 He speaks very respectfully and kindly of me, but does not agree with my doctrine. He does not appear to me to have seized my meaning. He attempts to shew that there is no land which does not pay rent, and then thinks that I am confuted—never noticing the other point on which I lay the most stress, that there is in every country a portion of capital employed on land already in cultivation for which no rent is paid,—or rather that no additional rent is paid in consequence of the employment of such additional capital.2 Believe me My dear Sir

Faithfully Yours

David Ricardo

This is a very confused letter, but I have written it in haste, and cannot undertake to write it over again.—

[1 ]Addressed: ‘J. R. MCullock Esqre. / College Street / Edinburgh’.

MS in British Museum.—Letters to McCulloch, V.

[2 ]Cp. below, p. 85, on McCulloch’s making the opposite mistake.

[1 ]‘or price’ is ins.

[2 ]Above, I, 144.

[3 ]Above, IV, 65. McCulloch had quoted from ed. 1.

[1 ]On Lauderdale see above, I, 371, n. The argument had been advanced in a letter to The Times signed ‘Daniel Hardcastle’, and dated 12 Dec. 1818; this and subsequent letters were reprinted with the writer’s real name in pamphlet form: The Letters of Daniel Hardcastle to the Editor of ‘The Times’ Journal, on the subject of the Bank Restriction, the Regulations of the Mint, &c., With Notes and Additions, By Richard Page, London, for the Author, 1819.

[2 ]Mushet had not made the corrections referred to by McCulloch; see above, III, 169, n. Ricardo’s ‘recollection’ was probably of the earlier, and distinct, corrections made by Mushet, which are described above, III, 166–7.

[1 ]See above, VII, 361, n. 1.

[2 ]See above, I, 412–3.