1831.] 
Answer to E. R. 
3G1 
But to say that the price of food will rise when it is more in demand than formerly, 
is to affirm a positive contradiction ; for we first say gold will rise in relative value, 
in consequence of demand to circulate increased quantities of wealth ; and second- 
ly, that it will fall in relative value, because the price of food will rise ;two effects 
which are totally incompatible with each other. To say that food is raised in 
price, is the same thing as to say that money is lowered in relative value, for it is 
by corn and other commodities that the relative value of gold is estimated 1 . How 
then is the price of food to rise, when recourse is had to worse soils ? How 
is money lowered in relative value, by the circumstance of men requiring more 
food than their former extent of cultivation can supply? More money, on the 
contrary, is required to circulate the greater quantity of food for which there is 
now a demand, by which cultivation is extended : it is therefore more in demand 
than formerly, and higher priced relatively to food and all other products; at the 
very time, when, by Mr. Ricardo’s supposition, it is to be of less relative value 
compared to food than it had been before. Now I again appeal to the reasoning 
public to know what chance we have of arriving at truth, by following Mr. Ricardo 
in bis system ; in which we find that the relative value of products is made to be 
the sole regulating principle ; while we at the same time find, in the very first step 
in the theory, this regulating principle is uttei'ly inapplicable ? If there can he no 
rise in value in any product unless accompanied by a corresponding fall in value 
in other products generally, (and this the theory of profits and the system of 
relative values requires,) then there can he no rise in the price of food ; money and 
all other commodities being, at that very time, in increased demand, as well as 
food. No rise of wages can therefore take place, and no fall of profits; and here 
appears to me to he the demolition of that fair fabric, the new theory of profits. 
Let me beg of some one of Mr. Ricardo’s admirers to explain, in what way the 
relative price of food is to rise and affect consumers, when an increase of 
population renders demand more brisk for every commodity, and makes a resort 
necessary to worse lands than those formerly under the plough ? A relative rise m 
food is nothing more than a relative fall in money and all other commodities ; all 
of which as well as food must, by the supposition, have simultaneous!} exptricncec 
increased demand ; and with increased demand arise in a alue ; which lisi 
value cannot possibly he simultaneous in all things, rises in one set of pi oducts 
^ e ' n g, according to the hook, only relative falls in some other set ot pi oducts. 
Is it not clear from the above, that the attempt to go two ua > s ,l ’ once , e 
standing still ; and that a system so conducted contradicts itself r ^ ot t ns » ie 
s yste.in we are called on to support and to believe and admiie; and upon 
English statesmen promise to legislate. # , 
E - R- dislikes my writings ; and he has every right to do so, if he p cases. c o 
n °t ask him again to read them, although in them he will find all I have now 
advanced. But he of course likes the writings of Mr. Ricardo. i ,e es 
s 0, »d as to look over that author’s main work again, and endeavour to ruunci e 
h>nr with himself. Do not let us be referred to commentators. et . ‘ / * 
Mr - Ricardo’s defence into his own hand; last this for information s sake, 
k'ing anxious to know the truth. 
1 for a parallel chain of reasoning to the above, see Ricardo on 
'"'I taxation— 3rd edition, pages 100 and 101 ; ; where supposition that 
J, ' C " S ° f COImno, lities would not rise on a rise of wages , ^ ^ sapp08ed it t0 
^Vca.ne from abroad; for money coming from abroa ’ g lhe reasonings ar« 
Produced at home like any other commodity ; in both 
ef iuully applicable. 
