254 
On Political Economy. 
[Aug. 
next page. “We must always calculate on a mixed result from tlie conflicting 
influence of the prolific power and luxurious habits.” 
In this paper he gives us the following piece of information : “ if what was essen- 
tial to a man’s support between the harvest, were 20 measures of grain, and if twenty, 
on any given tract of country, were the number of labourers by whose exertions the 
greatest net produce, or 400 measures, could be obtained, the labour of 10, or any 
number less than 20 causing a net reproduction to be evolved, less in amount than 
400 measures ; while the employment of 21, or any number more than 20 labourers 
tending to the evolution of a net produce, greater perhaps than 400 measures, 
yet not equal to 420 measures, or what might be absolutely essential to tlie support 
of the additional labourer ; in this case, neither more nor fewer than 20 labourer 5 
could be found existing on that tract.” He has forgotten the Capitalist, who must 
have advanced at least a year’s support to the labourers, and will probably require 
some interest for that advance beyond the 400 measures. In the note he adds,' Ihe 
matter to be determined in practice, is the point at which the greatest net aggre- 
gate return is obtainable ; and the question of the proportions which may happen 
at this time to hold between outlay and return, is one of mere curiosity. So that, 
the usual rate of interest in a country be 5 per cent, and a man finds that by 
laying out £ 100 he can gain a profit of 10, but that by laying out £ 400 be can 
only gain, on the whole, 16 ; the proportion existing between outlay and return wi 
be matter of mere curiosity to him. He will lay out the larger sum ! VVe next come 
to his remarks on Mr. Ricardo’s system of Wealth and Value, and we find the 
lowing passage: “But it may be answered, that Mr. Ricardo also looks to 1 1 
quantity of labour of which products are the result, with a view to determining or ^ 
ginally their real value. This, however, I maintain, he ought not, in consistency, ^ 
do ; for he denies the existence of real, or of any kind of value, except « ia ^ 
relative.” On this point he is continually misrepresenting the Political Economy 
He charges them with denying the existence of real value, and looking on y ® 
relations of products with products. They do neither of these. They a 
existence of real value, and compare each separate product with labour. 
In Mr. McCulloch’s notes before quoted, we find “ the real value o a ^ 
dity is measured, or determined by the amount of the sacrifice it ms co > 
labour required to produce it.” He it is who has made the blunder, y 
ranee of the meaning of the word ‘ real,’ which lie has supposed o > ^ 
mous with ‘ positive,’ and therefore that, by denying the existe ^ jjjg'erencc 
relative, they were also denying the existence of real value. The grea ^ 
between him and the Political Economists, is this, They take labour as 
mate standard of value, not blind to its defects, but aware that any i a ndpr° vS 
gation could lead to no useful result. He endeavours to go a step fart er, ^ 
that the ‘ invariable standard’ exists in food. Having written 9 obscurej^^ 
this, he at last owns, that “ in practice there is only a very rough a PP r ^ aS 
to it j” which seems to be about the same as no approximation at a ^ va ] U e.’' 
before quoted, “ in practice there is nothing which possesses an invaria ^ ^ 
By a quibble, in the meaning of the word ‘value,’ lie contrived to ^ ^ 
former papers containing 20 pages, and he now employs 9 pages m0 ™ con fou^' 
mistake of the word e real.’ Thus we find him blaming Mr. Rieaido^o^f ^ icar do 
ing real price with relative price, as he chooses to call it. The tiut 
uses real price (cost of production), and exchangeable price as conv ^g^e®' 
which he had fully a right to do, because, generally speaking, the o ^ ^ 
tical, or nearly so, with the other. He may see this explained ^ geC tio® 
loch’s note on Value, above-mentioned, and Mr. Mill’s Elements, c iap> 
