1831.] 
of Wealth and Value. 
331 
that labour, of which a product is directly and indirectly the result ? 1 find no 
answer to this question in Mr Ricardo’s work. But 1 meet with this opposite as- 
sumption, that if the wages of labour should rise, that is, if it should become ne- 
cessary to expend more labour in producing labourers, (and consequently in pro- 
ducing all the subsequent results of labour,) this additional labour, of which all pro- 
ducts would be indirectly the result, will not be additional labour expended on 
their production ; but would be a something or other, the expense of which it 
would behove capitalists to take upon theinselvef. If spades become the result of 
iriore labour, because the iron, for instance, was now obtained with more difficulty 
from the exhausted mine : or because the timber, of which the handle was form- 
ed, had been grown at a greater distance than the wood formerly used in these 
instruments ; it would be admitted at once, that the subsequent product of the 
earth tilled with this spade, was the result of more labour than before. But if 
this product of the earth were the food of labourers, and this more laboriously 
obtained food were expended in bringing a more laboriously reared labourer to 
market, it would be denied by Mr. Ricardo, that the subsequent results of this 
man’s labour were the result of more labour than before ; it would be assumed, for 
what reason 1 cannot tell, that they were the product of more costly — more highly 
paid labour, but not of a greater quantity of labour than before. Now to my ap- 
prehension, more costly labour means labour which it lias cost more labour than 
the former quantity of requisite labour to produce ; and as we all grant that pro- 
ducts are the result, not only of the immediate, but of the mediate labour employ- 
ed upon them, when we say an article is the product of more costly labour, wo say, 
in reality, that it is the product of a greater quantity of labour : and I consequent- 
ly infer, that whatever may be predicated of products, the result of more labour ; 
may with truth be predicated of products which are the result of labour, which it 
had cost more labour than before to produce. 
But I am apprehensive lest those who are uot conversant with the works of this 
distinguished writer, may conceive that I am not tieating the author tidily, in 
thus submitting his arguments in my own language, and in a manner calculated, 
in my opinion, to betray their fallacy. Here then follow all the passages which 
I can find in bis main work, bearing upon the points at issue, and tending to esta- 
blish his theory of value, and that of profits which is entirely founded thereon. 
In Mr. Ricardo’s chapter on value, we meet with these passages.—" If among a 
nation of hunters it usually costs twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does 
to kill a deer, one beaver would naturally exchange for or be worth, two deer.” 
“ Without some weapon neither the beaver nor the deer could be destroyed, and 
therefore the value of these animals would be regulated, not solely by the time and 
labour necessary to their destruction, but also by the time and labour necessary 
for providing the hunter’s capital, the weapon by the aid of which their destruction 
was effected ” “ All the implements necessary to kill the beaver and deer might 
belong to one class of men. and the labour employed in their destruction might be 
furnished by another class ; still their comparative prices would he m propor- 
tion to the actual labour bestowed, both on the formation ot tlio capital, and on 
destruction of the animals.” : a j m iii, . 1,0 
Now however interesting this may be to those who arc occupied with the de r 
ruination of the relations of products alone ; it cannot, 1 should think, throw 
much light on the enquiries of those whose aim is to learn how the wealth of the 
S ^lTnotfind>1his part of bis work, any thing further touching upon the 
qulln of how relative value is to affect wealth Mr. (tiarodo howiucr m^t 
have understood that he was all this time writing, about ■ wea th > , . for he tli » pro- 
ceeds “ Under different circumstances of plenty or scarcity of capital as compared 
with labour under different circumstances of plenty or scarcity ot food and ne- 
cessaries essential to the support of men, those i "" fi Tfourth, o' an 
WXSdE obSTl” emaiuder U,g paid „ ^ 
furnished the labour i Vet this division could not affert tbe vaiue ot namoijtm, 
since whether the profits " 10 “’’^ wonld operate equally 'oa both 
per cent, or whether wages were nign or jow, i 
'"HereTe'dSvision of the produce between two parties, 
according to the varying circumstances of pioduc “ m ‘ ‘ . partv’s share 
to have no effect on relative value ; and the circums « petitioned • 
beino- small when the other is great, and vice versa, is onl> incidentally n entioi e , 
,g , w . . ® ® tll A nnP nartv’s share shall be small, and another s 
and no conclusion is here drawn that one party s su 
