3G2 
Answer to E. R. 
[Nov. 
If a rise in value in one set of commodities must be, what Mr Ricardo assumes, 
a mere fall of value in all other commodities relatively thereto ; then it follows 
incontestibly, that such a thing as a simultaneous increase, or diminution of 
value in commodities, is utterly impossible ; and it follows also that the aggre- 
gate of existing values can never experience any increase or diminution whatever; 
every increase being necessarily met by a corresponding decrease. The applica- 
bility of the theory of relative values to the actual circumstances ot mankind 
may be judged of from this observation alone, without diving into the mysteries 
of political economy. 
But lest it should appear that, in trying to turn attention solely to the errors 
of existing systems, I am tacitly renouncing whatever may be original in my 
own views regarding wealth ; I must offer a word or two in answer to E. R. 
where he asserts, that no good can be expected from my telling people simple 
truths or truisms with which they must already be familiar. First, then, I 
would have him remark, that knowing a thing to be true when it is suggestedto 
you, and prosecuting a long series of consecutive inductions, with due allowance 
for the weight of that truth, are very different affairs. I am led by E. R. to 
infer, that all political economists are well aware, without my telling them, 
that the co-operation of the vivifying principle in seed, with the industry of 
man, is essential to ensure periodical return and increase ; and I am laughed at 
for my endeavours to lix attention on such simple matters. Will E. R be so 
good as to inform me, upon what principle the arguments in favor of unlimited 
freedom of trade are conducted ? It will, I apprehend, be found, that they are 
only tenable on tlie supposition that all commodities are alike the products 
of human industry and capital ; I say however without fear of contradiction, 
that a proportion of commodities only, is the result of industry and capital ; 
and that a proportion is the result of industry and capital in co-operation vvitli 
the principle of reproduction and increase. If there had been no occasion to 
call attention particularly to this circumstance, it could only have been, 
because political economists actually dW take this consideration* duly along with 
them. This however they do not do ; otherwise they could not argue, that 
nations, in importing and exporting every conceivable description of commo- 
dities, imported and exported alike the products of industry and capital. 
Mr. McCulloch is made to speak on this subject to the following purport : ‘ La 
hour may be defined to be any sort of action, or operation, w hether performe 
by men, the lower animals, machinery, or natural agents, that tends to brio? 
about any desirable result.” But when it is said that the value of the coninio 
dity or product is determined by the quantity of labour expended in its P I0< L ^ 
on, reference is only made to that species of labour which is possessed of ' a * ue ’ |t 
is, to the labour of man, or of capital expended upon the commodity 01 P 10tl 
Granting with Mr. McCulloch, that the co-operation of the natural agent, 
table life, is labour, and that this description of labour is performed spontaneous ^ 
still I maintain, that this species of labour is possessed of value ; that is, t° 
his own expression, that it can communicate that quality to its peculiar P 10( ^ 
Thus let us suppose a country in which unlimited abundance of unappioP ria ^ 
land exists, that in this country the society is composed of agriculturists 
manufacturers ; docs or does not the food raised by the agriculturists, on ^ 
tlie manufacturers also are subsisted, enjoy, in those circumstances, a \alue^ 
to more than the value of the labour and capital expended in obtaining ll • ^ 
does not, it will not be raised. If it does, whence then originates this value • 
co-operation of vegetable life is not that of a monopolized natural agent* 
