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]

349.

ricardo to m^cculloch1
[Reply to 344 & 348]

London 18^th. Dec^r. 1819

My dear Sir

I have two of your letters now before me, the first dated the 2^d. Nov^r., the second the 5^th. of Dec^r., and the only excuse which I have to offer for not writing before is that my occupations have been such as to have left me little time for any thing else. With your last I received your article on Exchanges, which I have not been able yet to read throughout: from what I have seen of it, I conclude that there will be no other difference between us, but that which forms a part of the subject of your first letter.2 With respect to that difference too, I think that we cannot clearly understand each others terms, for I contend for nothing more than is conceded in page 208 of your article, beginning with the words “In estimating the comparative quantity” &c^a.,3 you appear there to admit the definition of the par of exchange given by the Bullion Committee,4 but which, in page 207, you contend to be incorrect. If sugar were the circulating medium of the world I should think it right to say that the exchange was at par when a bill “which cost 100 hogsheads of sugar in London only brought 100 in Jamaica.” You appear to think that this opinion is not quite consistent with that (to which you refer in your letter) in my answer to Mr. Bosanquet. You say you understood me to mean that any given quantity of the precious metals in Spain being worth more than the same amount in South America that therefore the nominal exchange must be proportionally in favor of the former. If you substitute the words “real exchange” for “nominal exchange” you have exactly expressed my meaning, which I think agrees with the view I now entertain on this subject. Your remark that if no expences whatever attended the transmission of the metals from one country to another the exchange might nevertheless deviate from par on account of the time necessary to transmit them is quite correct, I consider the loss of interest for the time occupied in transmitting them as a part of the expence.

I cannot express how much pleased I am with what you say respecting the article I have written for the Supplement to the E B. on the Sinking Fund. I was so dissatisfied with it that I requested Mr. Mill, who transmitted it to Mr. Napier, to tell him that I hoped he would use no ceremony in rejecting it, if he thought it unworthy of a place in his work,—what you say of it is most gratifying, and if the public think only half as well of my efforts, I shall be amply recompensed for my fears and anxiety. You have spoken too favorably of the article to make it prudent in me to attempt the alteration you propose. It is highly probable that I should make it worse rather than better, by further meddling with it. You judge of me by yourself, a standard by which I should be glad if justice would permit me to be tried. You can transpose passages, and new model the productions of your pen with great facility—I with the greatest difficulty. To compose is to you an easy task, with me it is a laborious effort—I must not then risk spoiling an article which is distinguished by your approbation. Other engagements and pursuits too would probably interfere to prevent me from paying that attention to it which would be required.

You will see by the papers that I attempted in the House to express in a short speech1 some of the opinions which I hold on the questions which circumstances have rendered particularly interesting at this time. My difficulty in speaking is as great as in writing, and therefore I cannot judge how far I succeeded in making my audience understand what I offered. I touched slightly on the subject of free trade, which you have treated of in so able a manner. To institute the necessary improvements in our system requires firmness and perseverance qualifications which we shall not find in our present ministers: they appear to be satisfied when they have removed an immediate difficulty by deferring its pressure for one or two years.

Col. Torrens shewed me the paper which is a copy of the one he sent to you. I am more convinced than ever that the great regulator of value is the quantity of labour required to produce the commodity valued. There are many modifications which must be admitted into this doctrine, from the circumstance of the unequal times that commodities require to be brought to market, but this does not invalidate the doctrine itself. I am not satisfied with the explanation which I have given of the principles which regulate value. I wish a more able pen would undertake it—the fault is not in the inadequacy of the doctrine to account for all difficulties, but in the inadequacy of him who has attempted to explain it.

After I shall have read Mr. Malthus’ next work, that, I mean, now in the press, I shall be able to make up my mind whether his abilities as a political Economist have not been overrated. I confess that his dangerous heresy on the corn laws affords a strong presumption in favor of the conclusion to which you have arrived.—I will be obliged to you to send me the Scotsman and to inform me at the same time to whom I am to pay the subscription for it here. I want to know this not only on my own account but on account of my brother Ralph who is uneasy at the arrears of his debt. Before I received your letter I asked Col^l. Torrens to put me in the way of becoming a subscriber to that newspaper.—I remain with great esteem, My dear Sir

Very truly Y^rs.

David Ricardo

[1 ]MS in British Museum.—Letters to McCulloch, X.

[2 ]Above, p. 126.

[3 ]‘In estimating the comparative quantity of bullion contained in the currencies of different countries, a particular coin of one country, such as the British pound Sterling, is selected as an integer or standard of comparison, and the proportion between it and the coins of other countries of their mint standard weight and fineness is ascertained by experiment. A par of exchange is thus established.’

[4 ]See above, p. 89, n. 1.

[1 ]On 16 December, see above, V, 30 ff.