1831 .] 
Answer to E, R. 
350 
But it may be answered, the attention of the present writer has been devoted to 
these subjects ; and that he has set the matter at rest by referring me to McCul- 
loch’s note on value in that author's second edition of the “ Wealth of Nations 
and to Mr. Mill’s work on the elements of political economy ; in which works it is 
clearly explained, that the relative and real value of products are identical, and 
that nothing but ignorance of the existence of these explanations, or “ a determi- 
nation to quibble, could lead one to doubt the truth of t he proposition.” 
1 regret to say that I have neither of these works by me, nor can 1 conveniently 
get them ; but I have read them, and neither perceived myself, nor heard from 
others, that either of these writers did more than attempt to illustrate Mr. Ri- 
cardo’s principles on this very point ; I will not therefore go to the commentators 
and illustrators, but to the original work which these writers endeavour to make 
more generally intelligible. 
The distinguishing point of Mr. Ricardo’s theory of profit is, that any cause* 
which alfect all commodities equally, cannot produce an alteration in their price 
or value ; and that the only causes which can alfect the prices of products ure 
such as affect them unequally. 
Let us take no man’s word for Mr. Ricardo being right in this conclusion ; 
hut let us trace the steps by which he arrives at it. When the necessity exists 
for resorting to worse lands for the supply of food, an enhancement of the value 
of food takes place relatively to the wen who obtain it ; because food can only be 
raised upon worse soils by a superior expenditure of labour : while at the same time 
all other products requiring onlv the same labour as before for their production, 
and all of these being equally affected by the enhanced difficulty of obtaining food, 
they must continue to stand, relatively to one another, precisely as they did before. 
Here then we have it laid down, that the relations of man and food having been 
altered, (by more labour being necessary to obtain food than formerly,) therefore 
the value of food is raised relatively to him; and we have it further laid down, that 
all other products of industry being equally affected by this rise in the value of 
food, and the relations of these products amongst themselves being unaltered, there- 
fore their values relatively to one another are unchanged. We find tram this part 
his theory, that Mr. Ricardo is attempting to go two ways at once, when he 
reasons regarding the value of products : in the first place, that he is moving to- 
wards the relations of men and products, when he says the price ot food must rise ; 
and in the second place, that he is moving towards the relations of products amongst 
themselves, when he says that the value of all these will remain unchanged ; in 
the one case, that he is looking to the real, and in the other case to the relative 
v alue of the products in question. 
Now, I beg any person to answer me these questions. Is the value existing in food, 
the same thing exactly in its nature, as the value existing in any other coinmo 
( hty? If the samej then w hy reason regarding it on two different principle* ? E ll. 
telU me that Mr. Rieardo uses real value (cost of production), and exchangeable, 
01 relative value, as convertible terms ; and that he hail a right, on hi* own pro 
mi ses, so to do. This is telling me then, that the value.existing in food, in the 
c,lSe above given, is the same, according to Mr. Ricardo, in its nature, as the '<»1 u 
listing in other products ; and in this I am ready fully to agree with him. If 
l his be so, then I answer that Mr. Ricardo had no right to reason on ui \ different 
P'inciples indeed, regarding the values existing in these two. But hi dot. < 1 
nua, ly reason as if they were different; and out of this eery assumption 
difference, springs his belauded theory of profits. If, says he, thm ,ea 
c ^ss of capitalists, between the productive labourers and the consumers , 
