The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Abbreviations
• 437.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 435.—ANSWERED By 445]
• 438.: Mill to Ricardo1[answered By 441]
• 439.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 474]
• 440.: Malthus to Ricardo1[answered By 442]
• 441.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 438.—ANSWERED By 448]
• 442.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 440.—ANSWERED By 443]
• 443.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 442.—ANSWERED By 444]
• 444.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 443.—ANSWERED By 455]
• 445.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 437.—ANSWERED By 447]
• 446.: Say to Ricardo1[reply to 430.—ANSWERED By 488]
• 447.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 445.—ANSWERED By 456]
• 448.: Mill to Ricardo1[reply to 441.—ANSWERED By 449]
• 449.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 448.—ANSWERED By 450]
• 450.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 449.—ANSWERED By 453]
• 450a.: Place to Ricardo1[answered By 451]
• 451.: Ricardo to Place1[reply to 450a]
• 452.: Ricardo to Murray1
• 453.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 450]
• 454.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 455]
• 455.: Malthus to Ricardo3[reply to 444 & 454.—ANSWERED By 458]
• 456.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 447.—ANSWERED By 461]
• 457.: Ricardo to Wheatley1
• 458.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 455.—ANSWERED By 459]
• 459.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 458.—ANSWERED By 460]
• 460.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 459.—ANSWERED By 462]
• 461.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 456.—ANSWERED By 466]
• 462.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 460.—ANSWERED By 463]
• 463.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 462.—ANSWERED By 467]
• 464.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 469]
• 465.: Tooke to Ricardo1
• 466.: Trower to Ricardo3[reply to 461.—ANSWERED By 471]
• 467.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 463.—ANSWERED By 468]
• 468.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 467]
• 469.: Mill to Ricardo2[reply to 464.—ANSWERED By 470]
• 470.: Ricardo to Mill2[reply to 469]
• 471.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 466.—ANSWERED By 478]
• 472.: Ricardo to Mcculloch 2
• 473.: Ricardo to Mill1
• [enclosure: Ricardo’s Notes On Mill’s Elements of Political Economy]
• 474.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 436 & 439.—ANSWERED By 476]
• 475.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2
• 476.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 474.—ANSWERED By 479]
• 477.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo1
• 478.: Trower to Ricardo2[reply to 471.—ANSWERED By 481]
• 479.: Mcculloch to Ricardo2[reply to 476.—ANSWERED By 483]
• 480.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 483]
• 481.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 478]
• 482.: Ricardo to Sinclair1
• 483.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 479 & 480.—ANSWERED By 484]
• 484.: Mcculloch to Ricardo3[reply to 483.—ANSWERED By 486]
• 485.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 486 & 491]
• 486.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 484 & 485.—ANSWERED By 495]
• 487.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 488.: Ricardo to Say1[reply to 446.—ANSWERED By 496]
• 489.: Ricardo to Foster2
• 490.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 491.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 485.—ANSWERED By 495]
• 492.: Ricardo to Trower2
• 493.: Ricardo to Hodgson1
• 494.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1
• 495.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 486 & 491.—ANSWERED By 497]
• 496.: Say to Ricardo2[reply to 488]
• 497.: Ricardo to Mcculloch3[reply to 495]
• 498.: Say to Ricardo1
• 499.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 500.: Ricardo to [cowell]1
• 501.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 502.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[answered By 510]
• 503.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 504]
• 504.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[reply to 503]
• 505.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 506.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 507.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 508.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 509.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 510.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2[reply to 502.—ANSWERED By 511]
• 511.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[reply to 510.—ANSWERED By 514]
• 512.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 513.: Ricardo to Malthus3
• 514.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2[reply to 511.—ANSWERED By 515]
• 515.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1[reply to 514]
• 516.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 517.: Ricardo to Trower1
• 518.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[answered By 520]
• 519.: Maria Edgeworth to Ricardo2extract of a Letter From Paris
• 520.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 518]
• 521.: Ricardo to Goldsmid2
• 522.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 523.: Ricardo to Malthus3
• 524.: Ricardo to Mcculloch2[answered By 526]
• 525.: Ricardo to Grote1
• 526.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 524]
• 527.: Trower to Ricardo3[answered By 533]
• 528.: Ricardo to Maria Edgeworth1
• 529.: Ricardo to Malthus1
• 530.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 541]
• Blake to Mcculloch1
• 531.: Ricardo to Malthus1[answered By 532]
• 532.: Malthus to Ricardo2[reply to 531.—ANSWERED By 536]
• 533.: Ricardo to Trower2[reply to 527.—ANSWERED By 547]
• 534.: Trower to Ricardo2[answered By 535]
• 535.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 534.—ANSWERED By 547]
• 536.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 532.—ANSWERED By 540]
• 537.: Ricardo to Mill1[answered By 539]
• 538.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[answered By 541]
• 539.: Mill to Ricardo3[reply to 537.—ANSWERED By 548]
• 540.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 536.—ANSWERED By 542]
• 541.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 530 & 538.—ANSWERED By 543 & 544]
• 542.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 540.—ANSWERED By 545]
• 543.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 541]
• 544.: Ricardo to Mcculloch1[reply to 541.—ANSWERED By 546]
• 545.: Malthus to Ricardo1[reply to 542.—ANSWERED By 550]
• 546.: Mcculloch to Ricardo1[reply to 544]
• 547.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 533 & 535.—ANSWERED By 549]
• 548.: Ricardo to Mill1[reply to 539]
• 549.: Ricardo to Trower1[reply to 547.—ANSWERED By 551]
• 550.: Ricardo to Malthus1[reply to 545]
• 551.: Trower to Ricardo1[reply to 549.—ANSWERED By 553]
• 552.: Ricardo to Mill1
• 553.: A. Austin to Trower1[reply to 551]
• 544.: A. Austin to Trower2
• 555.: Mill to Mcculloch1

524.

ricardo to m^cculloch2
[Answered by 526]

London 3 May 1823

My Dear Sir

I expected ere this to see you in England; I hope nothing has occurred to prevent you from putting your good intention into execution, as I fully depend on the meeting which I have so long desired.

I presented the petition you sent me, and advocated its prayer with the best reasons I could offer, but neither the House nor the Reporters paid much attention to me. This is now of no importance, as the prayer of this, and of similar petitions, has been granted by Government.3

I have read your observations4 on Mr. Blake’s pamphlet, and think that there are some contradictions which you charge upon him of which he is not guilty. First, with respect to the currency, the only change in Mr. Blake’s opinion, since he wrote his former pamphlet,5 is that he formerly thought the difference between gold and paper, as it existed during the war, was owing to paper falling, while gold remained fixed, he now thinks gold rose and paper remained fixed. In support of that opinion Mr. Blake is obliged to contend that gold rose in value in this country from which it was exported, and fell in value, or remained fixed, in the countries to which it went. This is the opinion which you attack, and I quite agree with you that Mr. Blake is wrong, but you have not understood Mr. Blake’s argument, and suppose him to support principles which he would be the first to condemn. In this dispute Mr. Blake and you attach a different meaning to the word value. If we measure the value of gold by foreign1 commodities which are the objects of commerce between 2 countries,2 it is clear that gold could not in such a measure be exported from a country where it was dear to one where it was cheap. If wine was the measure, gold could never be paid for wine but when wine was dearer in the country which imported it, which is another way of saying that gold was cheaper in that country. But in France where wine is made, wine may fall in value, and at the same time the expences of conveyance may be increased. Under these circumstances England may not import more wine from France, and if France has to pay England a subsidy not having any thing but gold and wine (we will suppose) to export, she is obliged to pay gold. In all the commodities of France which are bulky, and which she cannot export, gold will rise in France, and in England all commodities will rise. The exchange will only deviate from par enough to cover the expences of the transmission of gold, but if we measure the value of gold by the goods of France in France, and by the goods of England in England,3 gold will come from a country where it rises in value to another where it is falling in value. If under these circumstances France should keep up the same quantity of money as before, by means of a paper circulation, no commodity would fall or rise in France, except gold, which would rise, and the exchanges would deviate more from par than by the amount of the expences of transmitting gold, because the bill would not be paid for in gold, but in paper, which has been prevented from equalizing itself with the value of gold. This is Mr. Blake’s argument and it must be admitted that the case is possible, but I think there is very little probability of its occurring.

There is a great deal of ambiguity in the use which Mr. Blake makes of the word value, he appears to me to have no common standard by which to measure it generally, but has a particular standard for each particular country. I made this objection to him, and also objected to the use which he made of the word depreciation, which induced him to give me the explanation contained in the inclosed1 paper.

From what I have said you will see that Mr. Blake’s fault is rather that of refining too much, and that he cannot with any justice be said to have2 become the patron and apologist of theories whose fallacy he has himself demonstrated. His conclusions are the same as ours—he is for adhering inflexibly to a standard, and his book may rather be considered as an enquiry into the causes of the alteration in the value of the standard, than an enquiry into the causes of the alteration in the currency.

I cannot understand what Mr. Blake means by an imaginary currency of invariable value,3 or why when he speaks of the value of commodities in different countries he measures value by such different standards. In favor of Mr. Blake I should contend against you that it is possible for gold to go from a country where it is increasing in value on account of the peculiar obstacles to the exportation of other things, but though I admit the possibility I agree with you in thinking that Mr. Blake has failed to make out that such was our case during the war, and that all the difference between gold and paper was owing to a rise in the value of gold. Mr. Blake’s arguments respecting the effects of a war expenditure are still more objectionable,1 I cannot say one word in defence of this theory.

Have you seen Mr. Malthus book on the measure of value? His arguments appear to me fallacious from beginning to end—he would have done much better to rest his defence of the standard he has chosen upon the old arguments in its favor, which I think unsatisfactory, but those which he now uses are delusive and are scarcely to be understood.—

Believe me ever most truly Y^rs.

David Ricardo

[2 ]MS in British Museum.—Letters to MCulloch, XXXVII.

[3 ]See below, p. 291, n. 2.

[4 ]A very long review of Blake’s Observations on...Expenditure in the Scotsman, 12 April 1823.

[5 ]Observations on the Principles which regulate the Course of Exchange; and on the present Depreciated State of the Currency. London, Lloyd, 1810.

[1 ]‘foreign’ is ins.

[2 ]This is Mulloch’s measure of the value of gold, which he applies to both countries.

[3 ]This is Blake’s measure.

[1 ]‘inclosed’ replaces ‘following’.—The enclosure is wanting.

[2 ]The remainder of this sentence is a quotation from the Scotsman’s review of Blake.

[3 ]Blake does not seem to use this expression in Observations on... Expenditure, 1823.

[1 ]Blake’s conclusion is, ‘that the expenditure and consumption occasioned by the war have been the chief causes of the increased production during its continuance, and of the distress that has prevailed since its termination.’ (ib. p. 120.)