Chapter X: Part 10

I think I have shown you that your long letter was acceptable by doing that which is really a difficult task to me, writing a longer one myself. I am, however, only labouring in my vocation and trying to understand the most difficult question in political economy. All I have hitherto done is to convince myself more and more of the extreme difficulty of finding an unobjectionable measure of value. As far as I have yet been [able] to reflect upon McCulloch's and Mill's suggestion, I am not satisfied with it. They make the best defence for my measure[273], but they do not really get rid of all the objections. I believe however that, though not without fault, it is the best.

I am sorry you could not spare a few days for a visit to us; if you will come to Gatcomb before we go to town, I shall be very glad to see you.

I have been writing a few pages in favour of my project of a National Bank[274], with a view to prove that the nation would lose nothing in profits by abolishing the Bank of England, and that the sole effect of the change would be to transfer a part of the profits of the bank to the national treasury....

Yours ever,
DAVID RICARDO.

NOTE.--Arguments very similar to those of this letter have been used
against Malthus by Julius Pierstorff, in his book on 'Die Lehre vom
Unternehmergewinn' (Berlin, 1875), where the views of Malthus and
Ricardo are compared with one another. There is, however, shrewder
criticism of Ricardo's whole doctrine in Boehm Bawerk's 'Geschichte
und Kritik der Kapital-Zins-Theorien,' Innsbrueck, 1884. A neat
_reductio ad absurdum_ of the view, held more or less explicitly by
MacCulloch and others, that cost is enough to explain value, is
given by Boehm Bawerk in his 'Grundzuege der Theorie des
wirthschaftlichen Gueterwerths' (Jena, 1886, p. 72), in a passage of
which this is the conclusion: 'To explain the value of a commodity
by its cost is to explain it by the value of the means of its
production. But how have the latter their value? Logically we must
answer from _their_ cost, in other words from the means of
production a degree farther back, and so on backwards. Now, clearly,
if we pursue this regress, we either arrive at commodities which are
not themselves 'produced,' e.g. land and labour, and our explanation
of all value by cost has failed us; or else we explain even these
sophistically as being in a sense 'products,' and owing their value
to their cost, e.g. the labour as owing its value to the cost of the
labourer's subsistence, and in this case we are bound to go farther
back and explain the value of the means of subsistence by _their_
cost, i.e. the labour that produced them; and we reason endlessly in
a circle.'

LXXXVII[275].

GATCOMB PARK, MINCHINHAMPTON, _15th Aug., 1823_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

It is a prudent step in you to withdraw your concession, for I am sure that your theory could not stand with it. You find fault with my measure of value, you say, because it varies with the varying profits of other commodities. This is, I acknowledge, an imperfection in it when used to measure other commodities in which there enters more or less of profits than enters into my measure; but you do not appear to see that against your measure the same objection holds good, for your measure contains no profits at all, and therefore never can be an accurate measure of value for commodities which do contain profits. If I had no other arguments to offer against your measure, this which I am going to mention _when used to you_ would be fatal to it. You say that my measure cannot measure commodities produced by labour alone. Granted; but, if it be true, how can your measure measure commodities produced with labour and profits united? You might just as well say that three times two are six and that twice three are not six, or that a foot measure was a good measure for a yard but a yard was not a good measure for a foot. If your measure will measure my commodity accurately, mine must do the same by yours. These are identical propositions, and I confess I see no answer that can be made to me. The fact really is that no accurate measure of absolute value can be found. No one doubts the desirableness of having one; but all we can ever hope to get is one tolerably well calculated to measure the greatest number of commodities, and therefore I should have no hesitation in admitting your measure to be the best, under all circumstances, if you could show that the greatest number of commodities were produced by labour alone without the intervention of capital. On the other hand, if a greater number of commodities are produced under the circumstances which I suppose to attend the production of the commodity which I choose for my measure, then mine would be the best measure. You will understand that in either case I suppose a degree of arbitrariness in the selection, and I only contend that it would be best employed in selecting mine.

When you say that my great mistake is in considering commodities made up of labour alone and not of labour and profits, I think the error is yours, not mine, for that is precisely what you do; you measure commodities by labour alone, which have both labour and profits in them. You surely will not say that my money, produced by labour and capital, and by which I propose to measure other things, omits profits. Yours does; what profits are there in shrimps or in gold picked up by daily labour, on account of the labourer, on the sea-shore? How much more justly then might this accusation be brought against you!

You object to me that I am inconsistent in wishing to leave the consideration of the value of money here and in India out of the question, when speaking of the value of labour and of commodities in this country and in India. I, you say, to leave out the consideration of the value of the precious metals, who have proposed a measure formed of them! There is nothing inconsistent in this. In examining your proposition which rejects my measure and adopts another, I must try it by your doctrines and not by mine which you reject. A conclusion founded on my premises might be a just one, but, if you dispute my premises and substitute others, the conclusion may no longer be the same; and in examining your doctrines I must attend only to the conclusions to which your premises would lead me. You ask: 'Would you really say that cloth and muslin were not dear in India where they cost four or five times as much labour as in England?' You know I would not, because I estimate value by the quantity of labour worked up in a commodity; but by the cost in labour of cloth and muslin in India you do not mean the quantity of labour actually employed on their production, but the quantity which the finished commodity can command in exchange. The difference between us is this; you say a commodity is dear because it will command a great quantity of labour, I say it is only dear when a great quantity has been bestowed on its production. In India a commodity may be produced with twenty days' labour, and may command thirty days' labour. In England it may be produced by twenty-five days' labour and command only twenty-nine. According to you this commodity is dearer in India, according to me it is dearer in England.

Now here is my objection against your measure as a general measure of value, that, notwithstanding more labour may be bestowed on a commodity, it may fall in value estimated in your measure; it may exchange for a less quantity of labour. This is impossible when you apply your measure legitimately to those objects only which it is calculated to measure. Would it be possible, for example, to apply more labour to the production of shrimps or to pick up grains of gold on the sea-shore, and yet to sell those commodities for less labour than before? Certainly not; but it would be quite possible to bestow more labour on the making of a piece of cloth, and yet for cloth to exchange for a less quantity of labour than before. This is another argument in my mind conclusive against the expediency of adopting your measure.

I repeat once more that the same trade precisely would go on between India and Europe, as far as regards commodities, if no such thing as money made of gold and silver existed in the world. All commodities would in that case as well as now command a much larger quantity of labour in India than in England; and, if we wanted to know how much more, either of those commodities, as well as money, would enable us to ascertain. The same thing which makes money of a low value in England makes many other commodities of a low value there; and the political economist in accounting for the low value of one accounts at the same time for the low value of the others. I do not object to accounting for the low value of gold in particular countries; but I say it is not material to an enquiry into a general measure of value, particularly if it be itself objected to as forming any element in that measure.

Suppose a farmer to have a certain quantity of cattle and implements and a hundred quarters of wheat,--that he expends this wheat in supporting a certain quantity of labour, and that the result is 110 quarters of wheat and an increase of one-tenth also in his cattle and implements; would not his profits be 10 per cent. whatever might be the price of labour the following year? If the 110 quarters could command no more labour than the 100 quarters could command before, he would, according to you, have made no profits; and you are right if we admit that yours is a correct measure of value; he would have a profit in kind but no profit in value. If wheat was the measure of value, he would have a profit in kind, and the same profit in value. If money was the correct measure of value and he commenced with L100, he would have 10 per cent. profit if the value of his produce was L110. All these results leave the question of a measure of value undecided, and prove nothing but the convenience, in your estimation, of adopting one in preference to another. The labourer, however, who lived by his labour would find it difficult to be persuaded that his labour was of the same value at two periods, in one of which he had abundance of food and clothing, and in another he was absolutely starving for want. What he might think would certainly not affect the philosophy of the question; but it would be at least as good a reason against the measure you propose as that of the farmer in favour of it, when he found that he had no profits because he had no greater command of labour, although he might have more corn or more money. You call every increase of value nominal which is not an increase in the measure you propose. I do not object to your doing so; but those who do not agree with you in the propriety of adopting this measure may argue very consistently in saying they are possessed of more value when they have L110 than when they had L100, although the larger sum may not when it is realized command so much labour as the smaller sum did before, because they not only admit but contend that labour may rise and fall in value, and therefore in respect to labour he may be poorer, although he possesses a greater value.

I have said that the value of most commodities is made up of labour and profits. If this be so, you observe, 'it is as clear as the sun that the variable wages which command the same quantity of labour must be of the same value, _because_ they will always cost in their production the same quantity of labour with the addition of the profits upon that labour.' I confess that I cannot see the connection of this conclusion with the premises. Whether you divide a commodity in eight, seven, or six divisions, it will always be divided into two portions, variable portions, but always two. If the division be in eight, the portions may be six and two, five and three, four and four, seven and one. If seven, they may be six and one, five and two, four and three, and so on. Now this is my admission. What we want to know is what the number of those divisions are, or what the value of the commodity is, whether eight, seven, or six? And have I come a bit nearer to this knowledge by admitting that whatever the value may be it will be divided between two persons? Whatever you give to the labourer is made up of labour and profits, and therefore the value of labour is constant! This is your proposition. To me it wants every quality of clearness. I find that at one time I give a man ten bushels of wheat for the same quantity of his labour for which at another time I give him eight bushels. Wheat, according to you, falls in the proportion of ten to eight. I ask why? And your answer is, because 'as the positive value of the labour worked up in the wages increases, the positive value of the profits (the other component part of their whole value) diminishes exactly in the same degree.' Now does this positive value refer to the same quantity of wheat? Certainly not, but to two different quantities, to ten bushels at one time, to eight at another. You add: 'If these two propositions['] (namely the one I have just mentioned and the invariability of labour as a measure of value) 'can properly be considered as having no connection with each other, I must have quite lost myself on these subjects, and can hardly hope to show the connection by anything which I can say further[']. I hope you do not suspect me of shutting my eyes against conviction; but, if this proposition is so very clear as it is to you, I cannot account for my want of power to understand it. I still think that the invariability of your measure is the _definition_ with which you set out, and not the _conclusion_ to which you arrive by any legitimate argument. My complaint against you is that you claim to have given us an accurate measure of value, and I object to your claim, not that I have succeeded and you have failed, but that we have both failed, that there is not and cannot be an accurate measure of value, and that the [most th]at any man can do is to find out a measure of value applicable in a great many cases, and not very far deviating from accuracy in many others. This is all I have pretended to do, or now pretend to have done; and, if you advanced no higher claims, I would be more humble; but I cannot allow that you have succeeded in the great object you aimed at. In answering you I am really using those weapons by which alone you say you can be defeated, and which are I confess equally applicable to your measure and to mine, I mean the argument of the non-existence of any measure of absolute value. There is no such thing; your measure as well as mine will measure variations arising from more or less labour being required to produce commodities, but the difficulty is respecting the varying proportions which go to labour and profits. The alteration in these proportions alters the relative value of things in the degree that more or less of labour or profit enters into them; and for these variations there has never been, and I think never will be, any perfect measure of value.

I have lost no time in answering your letter, for I am just now warm in the subject, and cannot do better than disburthen myself on paper.

Ever, my dear Malthus,
Truly yours,
DAVID RICARDO.

LXXXVIII[276].

GATCOMB PARK, _31 Aug., 1823_.

MY DEAR MALTHUS,

I have only a few words more to say on the subject of value, and I have done. You cannot avail yourself of the argument that a foot may measure the variable height of a man, although the variable height of a man cannot truly measure the foot, because you have agreed that under certain circumstances the man's height is not variable, and it is to those circumstances that I always refer. You say of my measure, and say truly, that if all commodities were produced under the same circumstances of time, etc., as itself, it would be a perfect measure, and you say further that it is now a perfect measure for all commodities produced under such circumstances. If then under certain circumstances mine is a perfect measure, and yours is always a perfect one, under those circumstances certain commodities ought to vary in these two measures just in the same degree. Do they so? Certainly not, then one of the measures must be imperfect. If they are both perfect mine ought to measure yours as well as yours mine.

There is no impropriety in your saying with Adam Smith[277] that 'labour will measure not only that part of the whole value of the commodity which resolves itself into labour, but also that which resolves itself into profit,' because it is the fact. But is not this true also of any variable measure you could fix on? Is it not true of iron, copper, lead, cloth, corn, etc., etc.? The question is about an invariable measure of value, and your proof of invariability is that it will measure profits as well as labour, which every variable measure will also do.

I have acknowledged that my measure is inaccurate, you say, I have so; but not because it would not do everything which you assert your's will do, but because I am not secure of its invariability. Shrimps are worth L10 in my money;--it becomes necessary, we will suppose, in order to improve the shrimps to keep them one year when profits are 10 per cent.; shrimps at the end of that time will be worth L11. They have gained a value of L1. Now where is the difference whether you value them in labour and say that at the first period they are worth ten days' labour and subsequently eleven, or say that at the first period they are worth L10, subsequently L11?

I am not sure that your language is accurate when you say that 'labour is the real advance in kind, and profits may be correctly estimated upon the advances whatever they may be.' A farmer's capital consists of raw produce, and his real advances in kind are raw produce. His advances are worth and can command a certain quantity of labour undoubtedly, and his profits are nothing unless the produce he obtains will command more if he estimates both advances and profits in labour, but so it is in any other commodity in which he may value his advances and returns. Does it signify whether it be labour or any other thing, provided there be no reason to suspect that it has altered in value? I know that you will say that provided his produce is sure to command a certain quantity of labour he is sure of being able to reproduce, not so if he estimates in any other thing, because that thing and labour may have undergone a great relative alteration. But may not the real alteration be in the value of labour, and, if he act on the presumption of its remaining at its then rate, may he not be wofully mistaken, and be a loser instead of a gainer? Your argument always supposes labour to be of an uniform value, and if we yielded that point to you there would be no question between us. A manufacturer who uniformly used no other measure of value than that which you recommend would be as infallibly liable to great disappointments as he is now exposed to in the vulgar variable medium in which he is accustomed to estimate value.

And now, my dear Malthus, I have done. Like other disputants, after much discussion we each retain our own opinions. These discussions, however, never influence our friendship; I should not like you more than I do if you agreed in opinion with me.

Pray give Mrs. Ricardo's and my kind regards to Mrs. Malthus.

Yours truly,
DAVID RICARDO.

NOTE.--Ricardo died at Gatcomb on 11th Sept., 1823, of an abscess in
the head, which caused great suffering. He was buried in the vault
of a church at Huish, near Chippenham, Wilts; and his friend Joseph
Hume was among the mourners. As he was only fifty-one years of age,
his death was a great shock to his friends and caused something like
dismay among his disciples. 'I never loved anybody out of my own
family so much. Our interchange of opinions was so unreserved, and
the object after which we were both enquiring was so entirely the
truth and nothing else, that I cannot but think we sooner or later
must have agreed.' So said Malthus, in Empson's hearing[278].

James Mill[279], albeit unused to the melting mood, was overwhelmed
with grief, and in a letter to MacCulloch, 19th Sept., 1823, writes
of the closing scenes with much tenderness of feeling.

CHRONICLE.

1809. Ricardo's letters in 'Morning Chronicle' ('High Price of Bullion'). Quarterly Review founded. Corunna (Jan.), Talavera, Wagram, Walcheren. Continuance of Orders in Council and Berlin Decrees. Perceval, Premier. King's Jubilee. O. P. riots. Bad harvest. Rise in wheat. Fall in other articles.

1810. Letters I (25th Feb.) to V (Aug.).--Lines of Torres Vedras, Busaco. Bullion Committee (report, 8th June). Burdett and Parliamentary privilege. Fair harvest. Commercial and Agricultural Depression. Many failures. South American market overstocked. Trade with United States re-opened.

1811. Letters VI to X (Dec.).--Ricardo's 'Reply to Bosanquet,' Malthus' article on 'Depreciation.' 'Curse of Kehama.' Fuentes Onoro, Albuera. Napoleon's estrangement from Russia. Virtual close of George III's reign. Questions of Regency. Castlereagh and Sidmouth in the Government. Poor harvest and high prices of wheat. Lord King's letter to his tenants. Currency debates in Parliament. Government loan to Merchants. Slight revival of trade. Stoppage of trade with United States.

1812. Letters XI and XII (Dec.).--'Childe Harold,' I and II. Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, Salamanca. Moscow Campaign. Repeal of Orders in Council (June). War with United States. Catholic Association. Murder of Perceval (May). Liverpool, Premier. Williams' murders in Ratcliff Highway. Depression of trade. Luddite outbreaks. Cold and wet summer. High price of corn.

1813. Letter XIII (Dec.).--Malthus' 'Letter to Lord Grenville.' Southey, Laureate. Vittoria, S. Sebastian. Luetzen, Katzbach, Dresden, Leipzig. Affairs of Princess Charlotte. Joanna Southcote. Prosecutions for seditious libel. Removal of Company's monopoly of East India trade. Good harvest. Rise in Colonial produce.

1814. Letters XIV to XXI (Dec.).--Malthus' 'Observations on the Corn Laws.' 'Waverley.' 'The Excursion.' Treaty of Chaumont. Abdication of Napoleon (April). First Treaty of Paris. Congress at Vienna. Capture of Washington. Peace of Ghent (Dec.). Trial of Cochrane. Burning of Custom House (Feb.). Introduction of Corn Bill. Repeal of Corn Bounty. Relapse in prices of Colonial produce. Indifferent harvest. Medium prices of corn.

1815. Letters XXII to XL (Dec.).--Ricardo's 'Influence of Low Price of Corn.' Malthus' 'Grounds for an Opinion,' and 'Rent.' Napoleon in France (March). Treaty of Vienna. Waterloo. Second Treaty of Paris (Nov.). Bad Season. New Corn Law. Luddite outbreaks. Low Corn prices. Low general prices.

1816. Letters XLI to LI (Oct.).--Ricardo's 'Economical and Secure Currency.' Bombardment of Algiers. War taxation kept up. Adoption of Gold standard by Act of Parliament. Income-tax rejected. Agitation about Civil List. Cobbett's cheap 'Political Register.' Spa Fields. Luddite outbreaks. Petition of London Corporation. Continued fall of general prices. Bad harvest. Rise in Corn.

1817. Letters LII to LXIV (Dec.).--Ricardo's 'Political Economy and Taxation.' Malthus' 'Statements respecting the East-India College.' Malthus' visit to Ireland. Ricardo's to Flanders, Germany, and France. Death of Horner (8th Feb.). 'Biographia Literaria,' 'Revolt of Islam,' 'Lalla Rookh.' Committee on Sinecures. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Derby Insurrection. Blanketeers. Attack on Regent. Death of Princess Charlotte. Hone's Trials. Fair Harvest. Rise in general prices.

1818. Letters LXV to LXVIII (Aug.).--Mackintosh at Haileybury. Ricardo Sheriff of Gloucestershire. Death of Romilly. 'Childe Harold,' III, IV. Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. Secret Committees on disaffection. Act of Indemnity. Poor Law Bill. Scotch Borough Reform. Debates on Resumption of Cash payments. Royal Marriages. Renewal of Alien Act. General Election (June, July). Manchester strike. Fair harvest. Increased general imports and fall of general prices.

1819. Letters LXIX and LXX (Nov.).--Malthus F.R.S. Ricardo M.P. for Portarlington. Act for Resumption of Cash payments. The 'Radicals.' Factory Act. Poor Law Amendment. Penal Law Amendment. Peterloo massacre. The Six Acts. Fall in Cotton. Trade healthier. Fair harvest.

1820. Letters LXXI to LXXV (Nov.).--Malthus' 'Political Economy.' Malthus' visit to France. Ricardo's 'Funding System.' 'The Cenci.' Death of George III. Insurrection in Spain. Congress of Troppau. General Election. Queen Caroline. Cato Street Conspiracy. Political trials. Reform movement. Popular Education. Penal law amendment. Good harvest. Low prices of corn. Agricultural distress.

1821. Letters LXXVI to LXXXI (Nov.).--Foundation of Political Economy Club. Death of Keats. King's Coronation, and Visit to Ireland. _De facto_ Resumption of cash payments. Interference with the Press. 'Bridge Street Gang.' Coalition of Liverpool ministry with the Grenvilles. Retirement of Sidmouth. Insurrection in Greece. Death of Napoleon. Large harvest, poor in quality. Fall in wheat. Low general prices.

1822. Letter LXXXII (Dec.).--Ricardo's 'Protection to Agriculture.' Ricardo's visit to Italy and Switzerland. Death of Shelley. New Marriage Act. New Corn Law. Wellesley in Ireland. Suicide of Castlereagh. Canning at the Foreign Office. Wellington at Verona. Ashantee War. Dispute with United States about Oregon territory. Habeas Corpus suspended in Ireland. Good harvest. Low corn prices. Large importations of wheat from Ireland. General prosperity. Agricultural distress.

1823. Letters LXXXIII to LXXXVIII (31st Aug.).--Malthus' 'Measure of Value,' and article on Tooke. Malthus Associate of Royal Society of Literature. Ricardo's 'National Bank' (written). Death of Ricardo, 11th Sept. Essays of Elia. Byron in Greece. Burmese War. French invasion of Spain. Recognition of South American Independence. Huskisson at Board of Trade. Amendment of Navigation Laws. Canning's Jamaica circular. Catholic Association. Poor harvest, but medium prices of corn. Low general prices. Increased general imports.

INDEX.

A.

Accumulation, what it implies, 39, 47-50;
of produce and of capital, 54;
its effects, 45, 52, 71, 99, 168;
Ricardo's difference from Malthus upon, 168, cf. 185-191, 203.

'Additions to Essay on Population,' 105, 128.

Agriculture, improvements, 8, 46, 59, 180;
monopoly of home market, 56;
distress, 3, 212;
prosperity, 141;
burdens, 3;
restrictions in favour of home agriculture, see Corn Laws;
Anon. tract on, 91.

Allen, John, 6.

America, its future prospects, 77;
high wages in, 118, 197, 198, 203, 204, 205;
profits, 41;
Ambassador, 156;
emigration to, 161.

'Appendix' to tract on Bullion, 17;
to 'Observations,' 61.

Appreciation as distinguished from Depreciation, 82.

Attwood, Mr., 3.

Austin, H., of Gloucestershire, 117, 169.

Austin, Mrs., daughter of Ricardo, 117, 213.

B.

Bain, Prof. A., 'Life of Jas. Mill,' Pref. viii, x, 44, &c.
See Mill, Jas.

Bank, Ricardo's speech at B.-court, 104;
its bargains with Government, &c., 89, 110;
its profits and Charter, 90;
its bullion, 100;
its notes, 102;
cash payments, 115;
incapacity of directors, 104, 185;
'an unnecessary establishment,' 89;
views on, 102.

Balance of Trade, 11.

Banks, Country, 89.

Baring, Mr., 161.

Basevi, 67, 108.

Belsham, neighbour in Gloucestershire, 140, 159.

Bentham, Jeremy, Pref. xi. seq., 3, 51, 55, 91, 140, 141, 151, 152,
166.

Berkeley, Col., 147.

Berlin Decrees, &c., 27.

Binda, Mr., 117, 125.

Blake, Wm., F.R.S., 75, 115.

Boddington, Mr., 6.

Boehm Bawerk, Dr. Eugen von, Pref. xvii, 230.

Bosanquet, Chas., 113.

---- Jacob, 113.

Bowood, 141, 156.

Bowring, J., Life of Bentham, 55, &c.

'British Review,' 145, 147.

Broglie, Duc de, 210, 211.

Brougham, Henry, Pref. x, 63, 156.

Buchanan, David (editor of 'Wealth of Nations'), 125, 128.

Bullion Committee, 2, 12, 24, 25, 26, 32, 89; Outl. xix.

Bullion, merchants, 3;
every man a dealer in it, 10;
debate in Lords, 26;
Bank supplies of, 100;
Ricardo's tract on, see Ricardo;
as a commodity, 9.

Burdett, Sir F., 55, 64, 152.

C.

Cairnes, J. E., 113.

Capital, home and foreign, 7;
when 'scanty,' 43;
rapid increase without low rate of interest, 8;
abundant, 18.
See Accumulation and Profits.

Carey, Henry C., 68.

Carlile, Richard and Ann, case of, Pref. xi.

'Champion' newspaper, 208.

Chandler, Mrs., neighbour in Gloucestershire, 159.

'Chronicle' newspaper, 104;
Outl. xix.

Clerk, George, 87, 125.

Clubs, King of, 3, 5;
note to III, 25, 110, &c.;
Geological Club, 64;
Political Economy Club, see Pol. Econ.

Clutterbuck, Mr., 41, 152, 213.

Cobbett, Wm., Pref. xv, 148, 159, 161, 162, 168, 208, 213.

Cobden, Richard, Pref. x, 160.

Commons, debates in, 64, 84, &c.

Competition, 'general law of,' 10, 42, 51;
its effect in equalizing profits, 195, 203;
competition of sellers more effective than that of buyers, 173;
acts feebly in some cases, 202, 203.

Constant, Benjamin, 91.

Consumption and Production, 36, 39, 185, &c.;
and Accumulation, 45, &c.

Continental System, 27.

Coppleston, Dr., 212.

Corn, demand for not unlimited, 4;
corn laws, 34, 48, 58, 153, 201;
Corn Committee, 42;
new corn law, 64;
corn as measure of value, 193, 221.

Corn-prices, as regulating others, 34, 84, 90;
relation to profits, 37.

Cost of production, 175, &c.;
as explaining value, 230, cf. 55.

Coulson, Walter, 168.

Countervailing duty on corn, 64, Pref. xi.

Crombie, Alex., 82.

Currency, 'redundant,' 11, 19;
how affected by the Peace, 38;
relation to foreign trade, 7 seq., 38;
'Economical and Secure,' 96, 100, 103, 108, 112.
See Bullion, &c.

Custom house, delays, 137, 140.

D.

Debate, House of Lords on Bullion, 26;
ditto on Bank Restriction, 150.

Definitions deprecated by Say, 209;
unfairly used by Malthus, 229, 237.

Demand, unlimited, 34, 43, 44;
effective, 36, 39, 43;
its meaning, 42, 43, 54;
relation to supply, 41, 42, 44, 148, 173;
relation to market and natural price, 53, 148, 174, 176.

Depreciation, Torrens' criticism of Malthus' use of, 75, 81;
Tooke on depreciation, 27, 82;
a public evil, 85;
depreciation and exchanges, 15;
depreciation and corn measure of value, 221.

Destutt, De Tracy, 211.

Distribution, to Ricardo the chief subject of Pol. Econ., 175;
in case of wages and profits, 185, 189;
of money in the world, 22.

'Domestic competition,' bringing down unusual profits, 192 seq.

Dumont, P. E. L., 3, 64, 210.

E.

Eckersall, Miss, 117.

'Economical and Secure Currency.' See Currency.

Edinburgh Review, 8, 10, 56, 65, 116, 120, 154, 170, 171, 184, 198,
240.

Elphinstone, W. F., 113.

Empson (Wm.), 238;
quotes letters of Ricardo's, 56, 65, 116, 120, 167, 175, 240.

Encyclopaedia Brit., 55, 157, 158, 165, 171.

Essex, expenses of farming in, 97.

Exchanges, with Hamburgh, 24, 32,
with Holland, 27 seq.

Exchequer bills, 90.

Experience, danger of appeals to in Pol. Econ., 96.

Exports, 7, 20, &c.;
of bullion, 3, 14, 19, 25.
See Imports.

Extension of Market, chief cause of, 99.

'External commodities,' 193, cf. 79.

F.

Facility of production, including skill, 93;
affecting value, 170;
affecting profits, 8;
'the essence of high rents,' 101, cf. 127.

Fact versus Principle, 18.

Fall or rise of money and of goods compared, 194-197.

Foligny, M. de, 137.

Ford Abbey, 51, 140, 141.

'Foreign commodities,' 79; cf. 193.

Fragment of letter, 105, 216-219.

'Fragment on Government' (Bentham's), 55.

France, 24, 169, 170, 211; cf. 92, 93.

French Revolution, 8, 151, 210.

G.

Gallois, the publicist, 211.

Garnier (Germain), 212.

Gell, Sir Wm., 173.

General glut, 188 seq.;
impossible, 14.
See Over-production.

General prosperity, 86.

'General reasoning' versus 'repeated experience,' 190.

Geological Society, 64, 75.

George IV, his character, 172.

Gilbart, J. W., 85.

Godwin, Wm., 198, 206, 207.

Gold, exportation prohibited, 28;
unlike other commodities, 5;
imports of, 24;
conditions of exportation, 27.

Goldsmid, Aaron Asher, 24.

Grant, Chas., 130.

Greenough, G. B., 75.

Grenfell, Pascoe, 89, 96, 109.

Grenville, Lord, 113, 150.

Grote, Geo., 96, 157.

H.

Haileybury College, a student of, 87;
pamphlets on, 113, 125, 126;
Mackintosh Professor there, 149;
others of the staff, 137;
disturbances of students at, 104, 213;
the subject before India House, 127, 130.

Hamburgh, table of exchanges with, 24, 32, 33.

Hamilton, Prof., 136, 137.

Hardwicke, Lord, 42.

Harvest, effects of bad, 21, 139.

Held, Adolf, Pref. xv.

High price of raw produce, its causes and effects, 47, 90;
Ricardo's views on it change, 126;
Malthus' view discussed, 127.

Hitchings, Mr., 134.

Hobhouse, 177; Miss, 159.

Holland, table of exchanges with, 28-31;
visits to, 118.

Holland House, 125, 207.

Holland, Dr., 151.

Horner, Francis, 6, 81, 115.

Hughan, Thos., West India Merchant, 12.

Humboldt, Alex., 138.

Hume, J. Deacon, 27.

---- Joseph, 96, 133, 208, 240.

Hunt, 'Orator,' 152, 161, 163.

Hone, William, 45.

I.

Idleness of the inhabitants of fertile lands, 138;
cf. Otaheite.

Impey, Mr., 131.

Imports, 4, 7, 12, 21, 196;
of bullion, 25, &c.

Income tax, 112, cf. Pref. xv.

India, E. I. College, see Haileybury.
E. India Co., its profits, 50;
illustrations from, 202, &c.;
Mill's book on, 146, 147, 149.

'Inquiry into principles of Malthus relative to Demand,' 191.

Interest, rate of, 8, 35, 41, &c.
See Profits and Capital.

Interest, of nations and of individuals, 18, 19;
of mankind, 188, 198.

Ireland, Malthus' visit to, 137, 138.

J.

Jackson, Randle, 113, 114, 130.

Jacob, William, 63, 67.

Jamaica, premium on bills in, 12, 13.

K.

King, 'of Clubs.' See Clubs.

King, Lord Peter, 148, 150.

Kinnaird, Douglas, 130.

Knyvett's concert, 2.

L.

Labour, as measure of value, 214 seq.;
as cause of value, 192.
Other references _passim_.

Labourers, as over-reached by employers, 139;
as injured by depreciation of money, 85.

Lansdown, Marquis of, 141, 156.

Lauderdale, Lord, 56, 57, 65, 115.

Leases in relation to prices, 47, 61.

Le Bas of Haileybury College, 137.

Level of currency, 16, 19, 34, 196.

Lisbon, gold imported from, 24.

Liverpool, Lord, letter of Torrens to him, 111;
motion in House of Lords, 150.

Locke, John, 221.

Lords Committee on Corn, 42;
debates on Currency, 26, 150.

Luxury, of idleness, 138;
love of luxuries displaced by other motives, 39;
luxuries curtailed by dear corn, 34, 35.

M.

MacCulloch, J. R., articles on Ricardo in Edinburgh Review, 154, 184;
and in Scotsman, 146, 184;
on Malthus in Scotsman, 168;
on Value, 221, 230.
Other references, Pref. xii, xvii, 44, 49, 171, 240.

Macdonnel, Mr., 160.

Machinery, Ricardo's views of, changing, 184, cf. Pref. xvii;
effect of improved, 99, 102, 188.

Mackintosh, Sir James, 6, 81, 149, 151.

Mallet, Mr. 140, 149.

Malthus, T. R., character, see Pref. viii;
letter to Place, 207;
travels in France, 169;
article on Depreciation, 10, 27;
tract on Rent, 58, 127, 128;
'Political Economy,' 123, 138, 145, 166;
Say's Letters to him, see Say;
'Observations' and 'Grounds of an Opinion,' 56, 61;
Essay on Population and Additions, 105, 107, 119, 128, 138, 143,
183;
Notes on Adam Smith, 56;
tract on Measure of Value, 214 seq.;
tracts on East India College, 125, and see Haileybury;
Utilitarian view of his subject, 175;
article (by him?) on Godwin, 198, 206;
Death, 45.

Marcet, Dr., 141; Mrs., 132, 133.

Market and Mint price, of bullion generally, 27;
of gold, 150;
of silver, 24, 115.

Measure of Value, cost, 175;
corn, 193 seq., 214 seq.;
gold, 230, 231.

Mill, James, Pref. viii, ix, xi, 44, 50, 51, 55, 92, 103, 109, 117,
131, &c.;
his 'Political Economy,' 172.

---- John S., 25, 132, 172.

Mocatta and Goldsmid, 24.

Money, like other commodities, 73;
on what its value depends, 78;
paper money ought to be Government monopoly, 89;
fall or rise unimportant in comparison with that of goods, 198;
as measure of value, 225, 230.

Monopoly and rent, 56, 61;
prices, 56, 202.

'Moral Sentiments,' Pref. xiii.

Motives for production, adequate and inadequate, 38-40, 185.

Murray, John, the publisher, 106, 108, 112, 127, 133, 207.

Mushet, Robert, First Clerk to Master of the Mint, 1, 3.

N.

Napier, Macvey, 157, 158.

Napoleon, 27, 70, 84, 91.

National estimate of profits, 40;
national interest, 18;
growth of national wealth, 40.

'Natural level' of money, 19, cf. 34, &c.;
price of corn, 71;
wealth, 182.

'Neat produce,' 181;
revenue, 178;
surplus from land, 180.

Necessaries, 138, 197, 215, 224.

Necker, M., 91, 210.

Newmarch, William, 26.

Nominal and real value, 7, 198;
wages, 123.

Notes, to Letter II (Supply and Demand);
III (King of Clubs);
XII (Tooke on Depreciation and Exchanges);
XVIII (Corn Committee, 1814);
XX (Adam Smith on Indian trade);
XXI (Bentham);
XXIX (Torrens);
XXXI (Depreciation);
XXXV (Say's Correspondence with Ricardo);
XLII (MS. mentioned in letter);
XLIV (Torrens and Ricardo);
LXIV (Say's Correspondence);
LXVII, LXVIII (Ricardo in Parliament);
LXIX (I) (Sinking Fund), (II) (Cobbett);
LXX, LXXV, LXXXI (Say's Correspondence);
LXXX (Francis Place);
LXXXIII (Labour as Measure of Value);
LXXXIV (Corn as Measure of Value);
LXXXVI (Cost and Value);
LXXXVIII (Death of Ricardo).

O.

Omnium, 24, 37, 85.

Otaheite, its fertility, 93 seq., 101.

Overproduction, 14, 38, 39, 170, 178, 185;
cf. note to II.

Owen, Robert, Pref. xi, 170.

P.

Paget, Thos., 213.

Parsimony, 39, 190.

Peace, economical effects of, 38, 84.

Peninsular war, metal currency out of circulation in, 100.

Phelps, of Gloucestershire, 141.

Phillips, William, 64, 81.

Pierstorff, Dr. Julius, 230.

Place, Francis, Pref. ix, 43, 96, 207, 209.

Political Economy, of what advantage to governments, 171;
inquiry not into production but into distribution, 175;
into effects not into motives, 185;
into principles not facts, 18;
corn, labour, and commodities the all-important subjects, 198;
two tasks of Pol. E., Pref. xviii.

Political Economy Club, 182, 183, 208, 209.

Poor Rates, effect on quantity of available food, 107, 144;
Laws, 126, 144, 225.

Population, principle of, 42, 69, 180, 186, 189;
turned by Ricardo against arguments of Malthus, 68, 70, 98, 99, 101,
205, 215;
whether food precedes, 144.

Prices. See Wages, Profits, &c.

Private work, its effect on general demand for labour, 98.

Productive and unproductive consumption, 185 seq.

Profits, rate of, 8, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, &c.;
on what hypothesis everywhere the same, 58;
rate depends on what, 34, 46, 52, 53;
how related to wages, 49, 52, 97;
to facility of production of food, 45, &c.;
cannot be at two rates in same country, 192;
rate lowered by commercial restrictions, 36, 38;
when permanently high, 41.

Q.

Quantity and Value, 3, 4, 5, 188, &c.;
and Profits, 46, 188;
not quantity but proportions determinable, 175, cf. 211.

Quarterly Review, 179, 212.

Queen Caroline, 173, 177.

---- Sophia, 145.

Quin, Mr., 168.

R.

Radicalism, 163.

Real price, 135;
value, 7, 198;
wages, 123.

Redundancy of Money, 10 seq.;
permanent, 21;
how cured, 22, 23;
of labour and capital impossible, 174.

Reform, views of Ricardo and Malthus, Pref. ix, 55, 151, 152, 163,
169.

Relief Works, 126, 128.

Rent, Malthus' tract on, 58;
always a transfer not a creation of wealth, 59, 155;
neglected by Say, 181;
other references, _passim_.

Restrictions on Corn trade. See Corn.

Resumption of cash payments by the Bank, 115, 150, 167.

'Retrograde Capital,' 39.

Ricardo, David, character and habits. See Pref. viii seq.;
Corn pamphlet, 64;
Bullion pamphlet, 21, 72;
Appendix to ditto, 7, 17, 18, 23, 27, 72, 109; cf. Outl. xix;
Sinking Fund, 55, 62, 157, 160;
'Political Economy and Taxation,' 114, 132, 135, (2nd ed.) 166, 170,
175, 176, 180, 184, 206;
'Economical and Secure Currency,' 100, 103, 110;
other MSS., 178, 228;
Sale and popularity of works, 112, 166;
converts, 169, 173;
walks with Mill, 150;
patriarch, 146;
optimism, 72, 183;
diffidence, 157, 158, 181, 200;
'a poor master of language,' 176, cf. Pref. ix;
travels in France, &c., 136, 210;
profits on Stock Exchange, 85, 147;
fear of dogmatism, 149, 174;
appearance of paradox, 145;
misunderstood, 178, 179, 212;
Sheriff of Gloucestershire, 147, 149, 151, 155;
M.P. for Portarlington, 152, 154;
Death, 240;
Letters not in this collection, 157, 184;
public services, 167;
speeches referred to, _passim_.
quoted, Pref. xv, 3, 4, 160, 162, 221.

Ricardo, David, son of above, 41, 87.

---- Mortimer, 41.

---- Osman, 41, 137, 191.

Rogers, George, Pref. ix.

Roget, Dr., 141.

Romilly, Sir Samuel, 3, 140, 141, 152.

Rush, American Minister, 156.

S.

Saving, 'excessive,' 38, 39, 188.

Say, J. B., Letters to Ricardo;
Notes to XXXV, LXIV, LXX, LXXV, LXXXI;
Letters to Malthus, 169, 173, 178, 181;
other references, Pref. vii, 51, 53, 82, 91;
('travaillez toujours'), 105, 125, 145, 154, 173, 192;
severely characterised, 178, 179.

---- Horace, 91.

---- Louis, 211.

Scarlett, Mr., 6.

Scotch Farmers, 61.

'Scotsman' newspaper, 146, 168, 184.

'Services,' Say's doctrine of, 170, 174, 181, 209.

Sharp, Richard, 2, 25, 149, 151.

Silver, as a standard, 101;
under mint price, 115;
over ditto, 24.

Sinking Fund, Ricardo's article in Encyclopaedia Britannica,
see Ricardo.

Sismondi, 210, 211.

Smith, Adam, on Indian trade quoted, 50.
Other references, _passim_.

---- Robert and Sydney, 6.

---- Thos., of Gloucestershire, 45, 54, 116, 118, 125, 138, 140,
173, 214.

Smyth, Wm., 81, 82, 83, 139, 149.

Social wealth, 182.

Spain, New, 138.

Spence, William, 44, 76.

Stael, Baron de, 210, 211;
Madame de, 91, 210.

Stagnation, not overproduction but derangement, 189, 191.

Standard of living, 138, 197.

Steuart, Sir Jas., 16, 144.

Stocks, up and down in war times, 85;
Stockholders sufferers, 62.

Subsidies, 1, 15, 88;
effect on Exchanges, 15, 20 seq.;
relation to price of corn, 88.

'Sun' newspaper, 115.

'Superabundant supply,' 3, and whole of note to II.

'Superior genius,' 174.

Supply, in relation to demand, 173-175, &c.
See Demand.

T.

Tables, exchange with Hamburgh, 24, 33;
with Holland, 28-31.

Taxation, relation to Rent, 59, 65;
not a cause of dear corn, 64;
too little considered by Economists, 164;
taxation and altered value of money, 3;
Say's views on English, 174, 179.

Tennant, Smithson, 2.

Theoretical and practical bias, 96;
theory and experience, 78.

Thornton, Henry, 25, 26.

'Times' newspaper, 130.

Tithes, 65, 171.

Tooke, Thomas, 26, 27, 81, 82, 184, 191, 212.

Torrens, Robert, 63, 64, 65, 75;
life, 76, 79, 81, 82, 90, 111, 112, 115, 116, 133, 149, 168, 170,
182, 195, 208.

Tracy, Destutt de, 211.

'Traveller' newspaper, 168.

'Trienniality,' 55.

U.

Ultra-Bullionists, 27.

Utility and Truth of propositions, 53, but cf. 182;
Utility and Value, 92, 93, 173, 174, 179, 182, 183.

V.

Value, real and nominal, 7;
of currency, 82;
doctrine of Value a cardinal point in Ricardo's system, 149;
how viewed by Malthus, 171, 175;
and by Say, 92, 93, 173, 181, 209;
Measure of Value, 148;
Ricardo's doctrine modified, 139;
Quantity and Value, 3 seq., 53.
See also Measure.

Vansittart, Nicholas, 3, 5.

'Verbal disputes in Political Economy,' 192, cf. 165.

W.

Wages, foundation of capital, 49;
do not depend on day's produce, 97;
in proportion not to the produce but to the demand for labour, 98;
'Real,' 123;
too high and too low, 186, 188;
depends on facility of obtaining necessaries, 34;
effect of high wages on prices, 39;
wages low in 1817, 142;
remedy for low wages, 166.

Wants of men unlimited, 34, 45, 49;
effects of changing wants and tastes, 1, 38, 49, 53.

War, effects on trade, 8, 9, 39, 72, 84;
Peninsular, 100.

Warburton, Henry, 96, 115, 117, 139, 140, 149, 172.

Wealth, as abundance, 211;
proper sense, 153;
natural and social, 182.

Wellington, Duke of, 84, 87.

West, Edward, 63.

Western, Mr., 213.

Westminster Election, 152.

Wetenhall, tables, 9, 24, 60.

Whishaw (or Wishaw), John, 2, 83, 118, 138, 139, 148, 149, 163.

Whitbread, Samuel, 63, 84.

Wilberforce, William, Pref. xi, 89.

Woolaston, Dr., 139.

Workmen, combinations, 144.

Y.

Young, Arthur, 97.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Cf. Letter LXXX, p. 200, cf. 236, etc.

[2] See the obituary notice in Annual Register 1823, which appears (on comparison with MacCulloch's Preface to Ricardo's Works, p. xxxii) to have been written by James Mill. See also Prof. Bain's Life of James Mill, p. 210.

[3] He left L700,000. Gent. Mag. 1823.

[4] Letter to George Rogers, 11th Jan. 1832, in the 'Place' Collection, British Museum.

[5] The political philosophy of Malthus is described by the present editor at some length in 'Malthus and his Work,' Book III.

[6] Brougham's testimony is the more valuable because he is by no means a disciple or admirer of Ricardo as an Economist. 'Statesmen of the Time of George III,' vol. ii. pp. 166 seq. For other authorities on the subject see Joseph Garnier's life of Ricardo in Dict. de l'Econ. Polit., and Bain's Life of Jas. Mill.

[7] See note to Letter XXI.

[8] March 26, 1823.

[9] Speech of March 18, 1823.

[10] May 21, 1823, etc.

[11] June 17, 1822.

[12] April 29, cf. May 7, 1822.

[13] MacCulloch's 'Funding and Taxation,' Preface to 1st Ed. (1845).

[14] Bentham, 'Princ. of Morals and Legislation,' I, IV.

[15] Ricardo's Wks. p. 554 (from 'Observations on Parliamentary Reform').

[16] B. IV, ch. IX, middle, p. 307. 1 (McCulloch's ed.).

[17] E.g. by Held, 'Sociale Geschichte Englands,' article Ricardo, and by Western in the House June 11, 1823, more coarsely by Cobbett in passages quoted in Note to Letter LXIX, and many others.

[18] June 11, 1823, in reply to Western.

[19] E.g. Grenfell, March 11, 1823.

[20] Feb. 21, 1823, etc.

[21] May 30, 1823. He adds a crumb of criticism: Cobbett underestimated the effect of machinery in throwing men out of work.

[22] E.g. 'The greatest advantage will be sought and obtained at all times by the employer of capital.' Evidence before Lords' Resumption Committee, 1819, Ques. and Answ. 75.

[23] Letter LXXVI.

[24] Ch. xxxi. of Pol. Ec. and Tax.; a chapter added in the 3rd ed., 1821.

[25] Speech of 9th May, 1822.

[26] This had been acutely observed (without aid from these Letters) by a writer in the Harvard 'Journal of Economics,' July, 1887.

[27] Ricardo, Pol. Ec. and Tax. Sect. I.

[28] Robert Mushet of the Mint. He published 'An Enquiry into the Effects produced on the National Currency and Rates of Exchange by the Bank Restriction Bill' in this very year 1810.

[29] John Whishaw, of Lincoln's Inn, the editor of Mungo Park's 'Life and Travels' (1815, etc.): see Edin. Rev., Feb. 1815; Brougham's 'Statesmen in Time of George III,' ed. 1855, i. 369.

[30] Richard Sharp, called 'Conversation Sharp,' author of 'Letters and Essays in Prose and Verse' (1834), member of the Bullion Committee.

[31] Probably Smithson Tennant, the chemist.

[32] P. E. L. Dumont of Geneva, the friend of Mirabeau and Romilly, best known as the admirer of Bentham, whose works he brought out in French as a labour of love. See Bentham's Works, ed. Bowring, vol. x. pp. 184-5. Like Whishaw, Sharp, and Tennant, he was a member of the 'King of Clubs.' See following letter.

[33] See note at the end of this letter.

[34] The same phrase occurs in Appendix to 'High Price of Bullion' (Ricardo's Works, p. 297) etc.

[35] Malthus regarded the change in the currency as in some cases the effect (and not the cause) of a change in trade. See references under Letters VI, XII.

[36] Fastened with wax at one corner.

[37] Probably 1793 to 1810. See Malthus' Pol. Econ. (1820), p. 324, etc.

[38] Probably Wealth of Nations (McCulloch's ed., 1863) I. xi. 95. 1, where the precious metals are said to be especially useful in the case of a roundabout trade of consumption. Cf. Edinb. Rev. Feb. 1811, p. 362.

[39] Wetenhall's 'Course of Exchange.' See note to Letter XI.

[40] Edinb. Review, Feb. 1811. See 'Malthus and his Work,' p. 285.

[41] Some information on that point had been given by Mr. Thomas Hughan, a West Indian merchant, before the Bullion Committee (Evidence, pp. 55-61).

[42] Franked by Richard Sharp.

[43] See note to Letter XII.

[44] The passages were probably the first three or four chapters of the third book of Sir Jas. Steuart's 'Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy' (1st ed. 1767), more especially ch. iii, 'Is the loss which the course of exchange marks upon the trade of Great Britain with France real or apparent?'

[45] Ricardo's 'Appendix' to the fourth edition of his tract on the 'High Price of Gold Bullion.' This Appendix embodies most of the opinions set forth in these early letters. See his Works (ed. McCulloch) pp. 291 seq. Cf. 'Malthus and his Work,' p. 287.

[46] 'It is self-interest which regulates all the speculations of trade; and, where that can be clearly and satisfactorily ascertained, we should not know where to stop if we admitted any other rule of action.' Appendix to 'High Price of Bullion' (Works, p. 292).

[47] See above, p. 15.

[48] See 'High Price of Gold Bullion,' Ricardo's Works (McCulloch's edition), pp. 264, 282.

[49] The Fragment on p. 105 should perhaps come here.

[50] Aaron A. Goldsmid, of Mocatta and Goldsmid, bullion brokers. See Report of Bullion Committee, Evidence of Witnesses, pp. 1-18, 61. He was nephew of Abraham and Benjamin Goldsmid, who died by their own hand in 1810.

[51] Wetenhall got his information from Mocatta and Goldsmid. See Bullion Report, Evid. p. 2.

[52] Henry Thornton, M.P., member of the Bullion Committee, author of 'An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain,' 1802. See J. S. Mill, Political Economy III. xi. Sec. 4.

[53] Part III. ch. i. Sec. 5: 'On the Opinions of the Bullion Committee on the Phenomena of the Circulation in 1809-1811,' pp. 100-110.

[54] See especially Letters IV and VI.

[55] Tooke, Hist. of Prices, p. 359.

[56] As was shown also in 'Letters on the Corn Laws,' by H. B. T. (J. Deacon Hume.) London, 1834.

[57] When the price of gold in Holland is above 10 p.c. premium, and the mint in England is open to the public, silver will be the standard in London. Consequently its market and mint prices will agree, and gold will be above the mint price. When under 10 p.c., silver will be above the mint price, and gold will be the standard.

When the price of gold in Holland was above 9 p.c. premium, the English L sterling would be estimated in silver and therefore the par of exchange would invariably continue 38.61 currency; and 37.48 Banco if the agio were 3 p.c.

[58] The agio is variable, but is supposed to be constant in this table for the purpose of calculation.

A marc weight = 3798 grains troy. A marc is divided into 5120 onsen[a], 200 onsen[a] of pure silver in a guilder. Gold and silver are sold by the marc in Holland perfectly pure[b].

British standard--gold 11 fine, 1 alloy; silver 11.2 fine, 18 dwts. alloy.

[a] The word is indistinct.

[b] The gold mark is meant. See Adam Smith's account of the
Bank of Amsterdam in 'Wealth of Nations,' IV. iii. p. 212 n.
(McCulloch's ed.).

[59] A good commentary on these Tables and on the whole of these early letters will be found in the Evidences of the Witnesses examined before the Bullion Committee (1810).

[60] His favourite country-seat, in Gloucestershire.

[61] This actually happened; and the letter is re-addressed first to 'Aylesbury' and then to 'Hayleybury'.

[62] Here and elsewhere written 'expence'.

[63] Ricardo's second son. The eldest was Osman, the third Mortimer. Ricardo had five daughters, three of whom were married, one to Mr. Clutterbuck, mentioned later in the correspondence. (See Gentl. Mag. 1823, pt. ii, 376.)

[64] Announced as early as 1807 in the reply to Spence ('Commerce Defended'). Ricardo's friendship with James Mill seems to have begun about the year 1811: 'With an estimate of his [Ricardo's] value in the cause of mankind, which to most men would appear to be mere extravagance, I have the recollection of a dozen years of the most delightful intercourse, during the greater part of which time he had hardly a thought or purpose, respecting either public or his private affairs, in which I was not his confidant and adviser.' Letter of Jas. Mill to MacCulloch, 19th Sept. 1823 (Bain's Life of Jas. Mill, p. 209).

[65] Thomas Smith of Easton Grey. His name is on the list of subscribers to Hone's Testimonial, 1818.

[66] Malthus was in the habit of spending his Christmas with his wife's relations at St. Catherine's near Bath, and it was in one of these visits that he died there, 1834. See Malthus and his Work, p. 415.

[67] Here and elsewhere spelt 'favoring'.

[68] Ed. 5th (1789). In McCulloch's ed. (1863), pp. 336, 337. See quotation at end of letter.

[69] See note at end of this letter.

[70] Mill had permanently taken up his abode with Bentham there in the summer of this year (1814). His biographer gives a long description of the house (_Life of Jas. Mill_, pp. 129 seq). It is in the valley of the Axe, four miles from Chard, on the borders of Devonshire and Somerset.

[71] The first sentences of this letter are quoted by Empson, Edinb. Review, Jan. 1837, p. 498.