360 
Answer to E. R. 
[Nov, 
when food rose in price, as all capitalists would be equally affected, by the en- 
hanced cost of feeding their workmen ; and as the relations of all subsequent pro- 
ducts of industry would remain unchanged, (or in other words their relative values 
would remain unaltered,) the consequence would be, not that the value of commo- 
dities would rise with the enhanced cost of feeding the labourer ; but that the 
gains of the capitalists would be reduced. I appeal to all who have studied the 
subject, to say whether this is not Mr. Ricardo’s theory of profits ; and I appeal 
to all who enjoy the reasoning faculty to say, whether this theory does not in- 
evitably spring out of the contradictory assumptions, that value, in one description 
of wealth, proceeds from the relations of man and wealth; while in other descrip- 
tions of wealth it proceeds from the relations amongst themselves of the commo- 
dities constituting wealth : in other words, the theory rests on the admission, that 
the value of food is purely real, or positive in its nature ; and that the value ot 
other products is purely relative ; and I further appeal to the same persons to know, 
whether it can be justly said that Mr. Ricardo had a right, on his own premises, 
to treat cost of production (real value) and relative or exchangeable value (the 
relations of products amongst themselves) as being convertible terms ; they being 
actually treated by him as things so very different ? 
If, says Mr. Ricardo, there be a class of capitalists to take upon themselves the 
charge of feeding labourers at a greater cost than before, then “ a rise of wages can- 
not raise the price of commodities as maintained by Adam Smith, &c.” But sup- 
pose there was no class of capitalists, what would happen? In this case, population 
is supposed to increase, and a resort to be rendered necessary to worse soils than 
those formerly yielding food ; the labouring population, now supported on more 
valuable food, works as before, and produces other items of wealth ; all of which, 
being equally affected, cannot vary in their relations one to another ; therefore ac- 
cording to Mr. Ricardo, they cannot be altered in price — their value or price cannot 
rise ; and hence an enhanced difficulty in obtaining the food of all labourers is to 
produce no effect whatever on consumers. Consumers, in this case, as in 1 
case where capitalists were in existence, cannot be touched, because all products 
have been alike affected by the change ; the fisherman, the weaver, the liatt ^ r ’ 
the hosier, and the worker in the gold mine, can none of them urge a plea 0 
a higher payment in their neighbour’s commodities, which is not as just a plea m 
the others’ mouths. If this be so, priced in commodities must remain unclmnge , 
and gold being only a commodity, prices in money also in other words, coi^ 
sumers cannot be affected by a rise of wages, and capitalists there are none up 
whom to share the charge; I submit that agreeably to Mr. Ricardo s t eoj 
higher prices would be obtained for food than formerly, and, no othei 
whatever would be produced. Is this possible? But we are justified in a^ ^ 
whence is to come the means of paying the increased price for food.— It nlU * ? 
paid for in commodities, agreeably to Mr. Ricardo; but in whose commo ^ 
Mr. Ricardo shall answer us this question. When the price of foo ^ 
it is because the increase of wealth and capital have occasioned a 
demand for food, which will be infallibly attended with an increased 
tion. To circulate this increased quantity of food, even at the same prm^ 
before, more money is required. Whenever a commodity is required in g>^ 
abundance than before, its relative value rises comparatively with those couui ^ 
ties with which its purchase is made. — If more hats were wanted, the 
would rise, and more gold would be given for them. If more gold W6lC * an J 
gold would rise, and hats would fall in price, as a greater quantit) o ^ ^ 
all other things would then be necessary to purchase the same quantit) o 
