358 
Answer to E. R. 
[Nov, 
brations on political economy, in which it is distinctly laid down, that the value, 
peculiarly ex'sting in wealth, is that which is definite, and which is susceptible of 
specific appreciation; and that, as such, it is precisely the positive or real (if this 
term is preferred) value of recent writers on political economy, when they are 
consistent in the employment of their terms. 
What 1 had written on this subject does not appear, to me at least, calculated to 
favor the employment of “ terms in a double sense upon which alone “ my 
occupation” as an arguer (for I cannot here use the term reasoner) appears to my 
critic to depend. Let all this pass, however, for it is mere waste of words. I can- 
not however help expressing my surprize at finding a writer, whom we may presume 
to be familiar with abstract speculations, confounding hypothetical reasonings 
with details of facts. Thus when I purposely exclude from my reasonings the in- 
fluence of all restraints on population, save want, in order that we may form just 
conclusions regarding the principle of increase in man, under these circumstances, 
I am taxed with ignorance of the influence of moral restraint and vice in certain 
societies ; and when I hypothetically treat of man, as depending solely on one pri- 
mary description of wealth, I am gravely told, that man would die of cold, in some 
parts of the world, unless he were clothed and housed ; and again, when I reason of 
a country, without any reference to the existence of other countries, whether unoc- 
cupied, or full of inhabitants, in order that the effects of the principles already in 
operation may be traced, uninfluenced by disturbing causes ; colonization, I am 
informed, has been on foot, ever since the world began : and, when I state, that 
in actual practice the naked hypothesis does not hold, and that certain countei- 
acting influences must always be in operation, I am told that one-hall ot my wllt " 
ings are occupied with the contradiction of the other half. 
But let us come to what is of moment ; the determination of the truth of tie 
theory of wealth now in vogue ; upon which a majority of the British le b r ‘ sl ^ r ® 
profess themselves determined to act ; the theory I mean of Mr. Ricardo. 
this view I beg leave again to propound the following queries : 1st. Are the ie ation 
subsisting between wealth and man the same as the relations subsisting between 
the different articles of which wealth is composed ? 
2nd. Is it through the means of the relations subsisting between wealth an ma “> 
or is it through the means of the relations among the commodities composing wea t , 
that we may learn how man is enriched or impoverished ? ^ 
3rd. If it be through the former ; then, I ask, how can arguments legal in 
the latter lead to true conclusions about wealth ? 
4th. Does Mr. Ricardo, in his celebrated theory of profits, conduct his ieas °^ 
ings on the supposition that the relations subsisting between wealth and I11H ” ^ 
to be studied ; or that the relations subsisting amongst the items com J , ^ ege 
wealth are to be looked to ; or does he reason inconsistently upon both 
assumptions ? mein* 
5 th. If he does, how can his reasonings he correct ? If he does not, et n 
treat any one to explain how he does arrive at his conclusions ? ^ 
6th. Is not Mr. Ricardo’s doctrine of value and profits allowed to be l ^ ^ 
terpiece of the existing science of political economy ? Is it not adopted l>> 1 
Mills, McCulloch senior, &c. ; and are not all the reasonings of the 5bei ^ ^ 
regarding corn laws, free trade, taxation, and wealth, generally conducte 
assumption that Mr. Ricardo’s chain of arguments is irrefragable ? . afl( j to 
These are some of the points discussed in my papers in the Gle anings , ^ ^ 
these I apprehend a critic, really master of the subject, would have diiecte 
tention. 
