in 
 
 ' 
 

 DUKE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Treasure %oom 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/lettertopoliticaOObail 
 
LETTER 
 
 A POLITICAL ECONOMIST; 
 
 • >< CASIONBD BY 
 
 An article in the Westminster Rfi-ieir 
 
 ON 
 
 THE SUBJECT OF VALUE. 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 OF 
 
 THE CRITICAL DISSERTATION ON VALUE 
 
 THEREIN REVIEWED. 
 
 Agedum pauca accipe contra. — Horace. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR R. HUNTER, 
 
 72, st. paul's churchyard. 
 
 1826. 
 
LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY CHARLES WOOD, 
 
 Poppin's Court, Fleet Street. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The article in the Westroinser Review, which 
 occasioned the following Letter, appeared 
 in the ninth number of that journal, pub- 
 lished about six months ago ; and the greater 
 part of these remarks in reply to it were writ- 
 ten immediately afterwards. Circumstances, 
 which it is not needful to mention, have post- 
 poned the publication of them to the present 
 time ; a delay, which the author does not regret, 
 as it has afforded him the opportunity of giving 
 the whole subject a deliberate re-examination. 
 
 Nov. 17, 1826. 
 
Lately published by the same Author, 
 
 ESSAYS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 FORMATION AND PUBLICATION OF OPINIONS, 
 
 AND 
 
 ON OTHER SUBJECTS. 
 
 The second Edition, revised and enlarged. 
 Price 8s. in Boards. 
 
 QUESTIONS 
 
 FOR 
 
 DISCUSSION IN LITERARY SOCIETIES, 
 
 ON 
 
 Political Economy, Politics, Morals, Metaphysics, Polite 
 Literature, and other Branches of Knowledge, with Re- 
 marks under each Question, original and selected. 
 
 Price 10s. 6d. in Boards. 
 
 A 
 CRITICAL DISSERTATION 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NATURE, MEASURES, AND CAUSES 
 
 OF 
 
 VALUE; 
 
 Chiefly in reference to the Writings of Mr. Ricardo and 
 his Followers. By the Author of Essays on the Formation 
 and Publication of Opinions. 
 
 Price 7s. 6d. in Boards, 
 
A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 A POLITICAL ECONOMIST, 
 
 ftc. inc. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR; 
 
 I promised to lay before you a 
 few remarks on an article in the Westminster 
 Review, which takes for its text my Critical 
 Dissertation on the Nature, Measures, and 
 Causes of Value. You appeared to think, that 
 the credit of the Dissertation could not be ma- 
 terially affected by such a piece of criticism in 
 the opinion of any one, who had studied the 
 subject. On this point I am disposed to accord 
 with you. In the estimation of thinking men, 
 the merits of an argumentative work can seldom 
 be permanently either much enhanced or much 
 
 B 
 
2 A LETTER TO 
 
 depressed by any thing extrinsic. The final 
 result will be tolerably accurate, although some 
 delay and disturbance may occur in the process : 
 and surely a man of any proper ambition would 
 despise a reputation, that could not stand the 
 severest gale that ever blew against the fragile 
 bark of a poor author. It would be a feeble 
 gratification to preserve a precarious buoyancy, 
 by the forbearance of hostility on the one hand, 
 or the support of friendship on the other. 
 
 Entertaining these views, I write the present 
 remarks, not so much in the expectation of 
 modifying the ultimate decision, which will be 
 pronounced on the Dissertation and the review 
 of it by competent judges, as to bring the ma- 
 terials on which their opinion will be formed 
 more clearly and prominently before them, and 
 thus facilitate the result, which is sure to take 
 place. 
 
 In proceeding to examine the statements 
 and reasonings of this review, it is impossible 
 to overlook the commencement. The spirit 
 in which the critic enters on his task is an 
 admirable preparation for the due perform- 
 ance of it. He had heard of the book, and 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 3 
 
 of its size ; and, without further data, instantly 
 applying a ready measure of merit in common 
 use with both dunce and philosopher, to wit, 
 the extent of his own knowledge, which appears 
 on this occasion to have most luxuriantly ex- 
 panded itself to twenty pages, he finds the 
 work guilty of at least one hundred and eighty 
 pages (fractions neglected) too many, and 
 condemns it at once to run the gauntlet of his 
 ruffled feelings. Nor does he stop at the fact 
 of this actual excess. The dimensions of the 
 book dilate before his excited imagination, and 
 he levels the heavy artillery of a quotation 
 against it as if the really small volume lay 
 before him in all the terrific amplitude of a 
 quarto*. 
 
 * " Before we had seen this production, and when we 
 had heard only of its size, we more than suspected what 
 we have found. We knew that any one, who understood 
 the subject, would say all he had to say upon it, in twenty, 
 instead of two hundred pages. * A very long discussion, 
 says an intelligent author, ' is one of the most effectual veils 
 of fallacy. Sophistry, like poison, is at once detected and 
 nauseated, when presented to us in a concentrated form. 
 But a fallacy, which, when stated barely, in a few sen- 
 tences, would not deceive a child, may deceive half the 
 
 B 2 
 
4 A LETTER TO 
 
 The temper manifested in the sequel is 
 worthy of this spirited commencement. You 
 were perhaps too severe in terming the article 
 " a continuous snarl, " although I will not pre- 
 tend to deny a remote analogy between the 
 criticism in question and that inelegant indi- 
 cation of disagreeable feeling. It is to be 
 feared, that the critic, whoever he be, has had 
 his passions irritated, or his complacency dis- 
 turbed, by something inadvertently let fall in 
 the course of the treatise, which he attempts to 
 review : a circumstance, which I most sincerely 
 lament. In an argumentative work, who would 
 not wish to avoid producing needless irritation, 
 and be glad if errors could be rectified in such 
 a way as would save the most sensitive vanity 
 from a wound ? 
 
 It is only on the supposition of some cause 
 of this kind, that we can account for the expe- 
 dients to which the critic has had recourse. 
 
 world, if diluted in a quarto volume.'" — Westminster 
 Review, p. 157. The reviewer has here most triumphantly 
 proved, that Mr. Ricardo himself is not to be ranked 
 amongst those who have understood the subject, since his 
 chapter on Value extends over fifty pages, and the other 
 topics connected with it occupy above fifty more. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 5 
 
 You must have been frequently amused by 
 similar exemplifications of that artfulness, that 
 dexterity, that cunning, which is manifested by 
 some of the less dignified passions of our nature 
 in the pursuit of their own gratification. You 
 must have smiled too at the contrast between 
 the transparency of the artifices with which the 
 passion seeks to cover itself from observation, 
 and the full security in which it seems to be, 
 that its proceedings are perfectly concealed. 
 
 In the present instance, the critic, scarcely 
 conscious perhaps of the principle which ac- 
 tuates him, appears to understand sufficiently 
 well the art of avenging himself by the common 
 expedients of plausible colouring and profuse 
 assertion ; of using terms of personality and 
 reproach in discussions abstruse enough surely 
 to preserve them from the interference of 
 spleen ; and of seeking extraneous topics by 
 which he may, according to the direction of 
 Hamilton in his Parliamentary Logic, " wound 
 the opponent." 
 
 Thus the author of the Dissertation is 
 politely nicknamed a " language-master ;" is 
 charged with shallow views, with writing plau- 
 
6 A LETTER TO 
 
 sible jargon, with mere logomachy, with a per- 
 petual ignoratio elenchi, with a parade and 
 ostentation of controversy, with fighting against 
 a shadow. A confusion is said with much 
 elegance " to reign in his brains," and self- 
 satisfaction and complacency I presume in his 
 heart. As to young writers, it is extremely 
 mortifying to be told, that their productions 
 savour of their age, the author is affectedly 
 considered (in defiance I fear of the parish re- 
 gister) as juvenile. An earnestness in argument, 
 which is generally regarded as somewhat laud- 
 able, is characterised as an intense persuasion 
 of the importance of what he is about. Pre- 
 cision of language, or the attempt to attain it, 
 is sneered at in italics. Metaphysical being a 
 term, which has something of the same oppro- 
 brium attached to it as theoretical and visionary, 
 that epithet is liberally bestowed # . Free ani- 
 madversions are exaggerated into abuse, and 
 perfect freedom from awe, either of Mr. Ri- 
 
 * "A man's conceptions," says Mr. Bentham, "must 
 be woefully indistinct, or his vocabulary deplorably scanty, 
 if, be the bad measure [or doctrine] what it may, he can- 
 not contrive to give intimation of what, in his view, there 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 7 
 
 cardo's intellect or that of any of his followers, 
 is converted into measureless contempt. Other 
 charges are lavishly scattered : " blundering," 
 " lack of knowledge and abundance of conceit," 
 " much ado about nothing," and similar phrases, 
 render this critique a valuable magazine for 
 those, who do not disdain to handle the 
 common weapons of critical offence. 
 
 Such is the language and such are the ex- 
 pedients to which critics think proper to de- 
 scend. Whether they are indications of a 
 suitable spirit for the examination of an ab- 
 struse work ; whether they exhibit any thing 
 of the moderation of a man of sense, or the 
 temper of a philosopher ; whether they are 
 disgraceful to him who has employed them, 
 or to him against whom they are directed, every 
 one can decide for himself. 
 
 It is well remarked by Mr. Bentham, that 
 M nothing but laborious application and a clear 
 and comprehensive intellect can enable a man 
 
 is bad in it, without employing an epithet, the effect of 
 which is to hold out, as an object of contempt, the very 
 act of thinking, the operation of thought itself." — The 
 Book of Fallacies, p. 298. 
 
O A LETTER TO 
 
 on any given subject to employ successfully 
 relevant arguments drawn from the subject it- 
 self. To employ personalities, neither labour 
 nor intellect is required : in this sort of contest 
 the most idle and the most ignorant are quite 
 on a par with, if not superior to, the most in- 
 dustrious and the most highly-gifted indivi- 
 duals. Nothing can be more convenient for 
 those who would speak without the trouble of 
 thinking ; the same ideas are brought forward 
 over and over again, and all that is required is 
 to vary the turn of expression *." 
 
 There are as many artifices in criticism as 
 in political discussion, and many of Mr. Ben- 
 tham's remarks in his Book of Fallacies might 
 be applied with slight modification to the art 
 of reviewing. 
 
 It would be rendering a service to the pub- 
 lic, if any of that praiseworthy class of writers, 
 who have employed themselves in arranging 
 and familiarising the speculations of men of 
 more original minds, would adapt Mr. Ben- 
 tham's exposition of political sophistry to the 
 practices of criticism. No one perhaps would 
 * Book of Fallacies, p. 141. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 9 
 
 accomplish this task better than the author of 
 those articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
 which have so clearly if not very eloquently 
 explained the views of the greatest writer of 
 the age on Legislation. We should then 
 be able, on reading a review, to do what 
 Mr. Bentham predicts we shall be enabled to 
 accomplish at some future period on hearing 
 a speech ; namely, instantly to mark a fallacy 
 or unfair artifice by its appropriate appellation ; 
 and as in the House of Commons " a voice 
 shall be heard * (to adopt the language of 
 Mr. Bentham) " followed if need be by voices 
 in scores crying aloud, ' Stale ! Stale ! Fallacy 
 of Authority! Fallacy of Distrust* !' so in 
 reading the Edinburgh, Quarterly, Monthly, 
 or Westminster Review, there would instinc- 
 tively rise to the lips the exclamation, Fallacy 
 of Spleen ! Fallacy of Confusion ! Question- 
 begging appellatives ! Hobgoblin argument ! 
 Wasp-reply ! 
 
 The expressions of irritation which I have 
 noticed you will probably think are not the 
 most reprehensible parts of the article in 
 * Book of Fallacies, p. 410. 
 
10 A LETTER TO 
 
 question. Every one will be disposed to over- 
 look the transient effusions of splenetic feeling, 
 and to regard the subject of them with com- 
 passion, as suffering under a paroxysm which 
 naturally exhausts itself and leaves him as 
 harmless as before. It is true "nescit vox missa 
 reverti')" but this only establishes a fur- 
 ther claim on our pity, since it is an additional 
 misfortune when the irritation of the moment 
 has embodied itself in words, and thus become 
 the source of permanent humiliation. 
 
 It is not easy to exercise equal forbearance 
 in the case of palpable misrepresentation, al- 
 though I shall be able to suggest an apology, 
 which even in this case may moderate the in- 
 dignation of the upright and candid mind. 
 Amongst several instances of the nature al- 
 luded to, the following is not the least con- 
 spicuous : — 
 
 " Chap X. On the Difference between a 
 Measure and a Cause of Value. The author 
 charges all writers but himself with the ab- 
 surdity of confounding these two things." 
 
 He, who is unacquainted with the candour 
 of criticism or the logic of system, could not 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 11 
 
 possibly imagine that so far from this being 
 the case, the author of the Dissertation ascribes 
 to a preceding writer (the author of the Tem- 
 plars' Dialogues) the merit of having clearly 
 pointed out this distinction. 
 
 The assertion, therefore, that the author 
 charges all writers but himself with confound- 
 ing these two things seems to be a slight de- 
 parture from the strictness of correct represent- 
 ation. 
 
 Another instance in which the reviewer tres- 
 passes beyond the limits usually observed by 
 the accurate and discreet is the following. The 
 author of the Dissertation says, in his first chap- 
 ter, that the value of a commodity can be ex- 
 pressed only by a quantity of some other com- 
 modity, and that a rise or fall in its value means, 
 that it exchanges for a greater or smaller quan- 
 tity of that other commodity than it did before ; 
 to which he adds a remark, that " simple as 
 these results appear we have seen that it is pos- 
 sible to overlook them." 
 
 In reply to this the reviewer, with all the 
 suavity of manner which embellishes his writ- 
 ings, breaks out, " we affirm that nobody has 
 ever overlooked them. 
 
12 A LETTER TO 
 
 It is convenient to meet with an adversary 
 who rejects the unworthy maxim which teaches 
 discretion to be the better part of valour, and 
 commits himself to the contest with uncalcu- 
 lating temerity. Could any one but a writer 
 of this complexion hazard such an assertion as 
 the above when the very chapter, one of the 
 positions of which he so unhesitatingly contra- 
 dicts, furnishes an instance in which the truth 
 of the propositions in question is not only over- 
 looked but in fact positively denied ? If you 
 will turn to that chapter you will find that the 
 author of the Templars' Dialogues repeatedly 
 affirms, that " there is no necessary connexion 
 at all or of any kind between the quantity com- 
 manded and the value commanding." And 
 again, " I presume that in your use, and in 
 every body's use of the word value, a high 
 value ought to purchase a high value, and that 
 it will be very absurd if it should not. But 
 as to purchasing a great quantity, that condi- 
 tion is surely not included in any man's idea 
 of value." 
 
 It cannot be urged here, you will observe, 
 that the writer considers himself as using value 
 in a peculiar technical sense : he considers his 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 13 
 
 assertions true in the common acceptation of 
 the term, u in any man's idea of it." In the 
 common acceptation of the term then he denies 
 that the value of a commodity has any con- 
 nexion with the quantity of any other commo- 
 dity, and consequently he must deny my defi- 
 nitions of the terms rise and fall, which are as- 
 serted by the reviewer to be identical proposi- 
 tions, and which nobody he says ever over- 
 looked. 
 
 The same laudable figure of speech, the same 
 divergence from the strict line of correct repre- 
 sentation occurs in a subsequent passage. " The 
 author says here" (writes the reviewer in re- 
 ference to the sixth chapter), " that value is 
 exchangeable value, and of exchangeable value 
 there neither is nor can be any invariable mea- 
 sure. He imputes the absurdity of denying 
 this proposition largely to all political econo- 
 mists preceding himself. In this, however, 
 he indulges an idea of his own superiority, for 
 which he is indebted solely to his own ima- 
 gination. " Never was there a more beautiful 
 exemplification of the candour of controversy 
 than the charge here brought against me. 
 
14 A LETTER TO 
 
 What is the fact? Far from imputing to all 
 economists the absurdity of denying that there 
 neither is nor can be any invariable measure, 
 I do not in this chapter impute it to a single 
 one. I make no imputation of the sort. On the 
 contrary, in a preceding chapter, I had already 
 said, " Mr. Ricardo so far agrees with the view 
 here taken, as to maintain the impossibility of 
 finding any commodity of invariable value ; " 
 and in the sixth Chapter itself I quote from his 
 Principles of Political Economy the very pas- 
 sage in which this impossibility is asserted. 
 
 The impossibility of a, measure of invariable 
 value has been likewise maintained by the 
 Earl of Lauderdale, Col. Torrens, and others : 
 and although the contrary has been held by 
 Adam Smith and Mr. Malthus, the merest no- 
 vice in political economy could not possibly 
 run into the mistake of imputing the latter opi- 
 nion to all economists. It is an error into 
 which even a reviewer in all the rashness of 
 his irritability could hardly precipitate himself. 
 What in the chapter referred to I have really 
 imputed to political economists is a proposition 
 of a very different character. I have not said 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 15 
 
 that they deny the impossibility of an invariable 
 measure, but that they maintain, almost without 
 exception, invariableness to be necessary to 
 constitute a measure of value, while 1 contend 
 that invariableness has nothing to do with it. 
 There must be something exceedingly peculiar 
 in the moral or intellectual structure of a mind 
 capable of confounding two propositions be- 
 tween which there is not a single point of re- 
 semblance. What renders the matter more re- 
 markable is, that this false representation is 
 made the ground both of a preliminary charge 
 of ignoratio elenchi against the author of the 
 Dissertation, and of a concluding sarcasm 
 against his conceit. 
 
 These misrepresentations, you will observe, 
 are in direct opposition to the real facts of 
 each case : others present themselves in the form 
 of exaggerations, and although from this cir- 
 cumstance they may wear some colour of truth, 
 they are actually quite as successful in diverg- 
 ing from accuracy as the rest. Of these the 
 charge of abusing Mr. Ricardo I shall briefly 
 notice, not having any vehement inclination to 
 be regarded as one of a class in which the 
 
16 A LETTER TO 
 
 reviewer's self control seems insufficient to 
 preserve him from being ranked, and to which 
 he seems anxious to reduce every body else; 
 probably on the principle that actuated the 
 fox in the fable, who, having suffered a 
 mutilation not of the most reputable kind, 
 endeavoured to involve his fellows in the same 
 ignominious misfortune. No one who has any 
 tolerable share of self respect would wish to be 
 classed among those who cannot discuss an 
 important subject with temper, nor enter into 
 controversy without descending to language, 
 the disgrace of which recoils on him who utters 
 it. When therefore the reviewer represents 
 the author of the Dissertation as " abusing" 
 Mr. Ricardo, as "bestowing vituperation" upon 
 him, as " charging him with the highest de- 
 gree of intellectual culpability, "as " pouring 
 upon him contempt to which there is no mea- 
 sure," I am not inclined to let such a repre- 
 sentation pass without exposing its real cha- 
 racter. All that is necessary for this pur- 
 pose is a simple statement of facts. The un- 
 suspicious reader will be surprised to learn, 
 that the strongest expressions unfavourable to 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 17 
 
 Mr. Ricardo in the Dissertation are the follow- 
 ing : " there was an original perplexity and con- 
 fusion in some fundamental ideas from which he 
 was never able to extricate himself;" and, in 
 another passage, " his elaborate chapter on this 
 subject" (value and riches) " appears to me to 
 be a remarkable tissue of errors and unmeaning 
 conclusions arising from his fundamental mis- 
 conception of the nature of value." Other simi- 
 lar expressions might be cited, but these are I 
 believe the most forcible of any to the dis- 
 paragement of Mr. Ricardo to be found in the 
 volume ; and as they neither contain any term 
 of wanton censure, nor are mere unsupported 
 assertions, but are followed by explanations of 
 the grounds on which they are made, they will 
 be generally regarded as keeping within the 
 limits of fair criticism. From all this the reader 
 will probably conclude in opposition to the 
 critic, that if there is no measure to the contempt 
 which the author of the Dissertation bestows 
 on Mr. Ricardo, it is for the most excellent rea- 
 son that there is no contempt bestowed at all. 
 He will be further confirmed in this con- 
 clusion when he learns, that as there was no 
 
 c 
 
18 A LETTER TO 
 
 hesitation in that work to pronounce an un- 
 favourable judgment when necessary, so there 
 was no reluctance to express a favourable 
 opinion when the opportunity presented itself. 
 Thus in one place Mr. Ricardo is termed an 
 eminent writer, in another a man of strong fa- 
 culties, in a third the possessor of remarkable 
 logical powers. It is not every one, it appears, 
 who is able to comprehend that impartiality, 
 which can distinguish faults and expose errors 
 (faults and errors inseparable from the pro- 
 gressive nature of human knowledge), while 
 it entertains and expresses a sincere respect for 
 the mind from which they have emanated, 
 along with successful processes of reasoning 
 and discoveries of truth. 
 
 The foregoing are a few instances of the mis- 
 representations scattered through the review, 
 and for which it seems at first sight difficult to 
 account on any principle adequate to repress 
 the contempt or indignation of the reader. 
 They admit, nevertheless, of several explana- 
 tions tending to soften the moral turpitude of 
 the offence. Some of them may be imputed to 
 a courageous neglect on the part of the reviewer 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 19 
 
 to possess himself of what is considered, by 
 humbler individuals, a requisite qualification in 
 all critical enterprises. He seems to have mag- 
 nanimously disregarded the convenience and 
 security arising to a critic from a competent 
 acquaintance with the work which he makes the 
 subject of his animadversions. While this high- 
 minded omission will account for several of his 
 trespasses, his other deviations from rigid accu- 
 racy of statement may take refuge in an expla- 
 nation which as soon as it is suggested to any 
 one acquainted with a certain school of Politi- 
 cal Economy will convert his indignation into 
 a much lighter and pleasanter emotion. 
 
 He will recognize in them the achievements 
 of that dexterous logic which he has already 
 learnt to admire, and which holds pretty 
 nearly the same relation to the true art of 
 reasoning that the skill of the juggler, or the 
 miraculous magic of the harlequin, bears to 
 the useful arts of life. Under this dialectical 
 power of transmutation, plurality is converted 
 into unity, effects into causes, nothing into 
 something, propositions into their opposites : 
 one particular cause becomes the sole regu- 
 
 c 2 
 
20 A LETTER TO 
 
 lating principle of value amidst the admitted 
 operation of other causes; a commodity is 
 reconverted into the toil which produced it* ; 
 additional labour, in defiance of bars and 
 bungs, pertinaciously settles upon a cask of 
 wine which has been scrupulously preserved 
 from the touch of human hands in the security 
 of a well locked cellarf ; and as the climax of 
 this sleight of intellect, an author's declara- 
 tions empty themselves of their identity and 
 become the opposite of what they are ! 
 
 This art of transmutation seems to assume 
 in many cases the features of imagination, and 
 things are gravely put forth as true which teem 
 with all the characl eristics, except the graces, 
 of fiction. An instance of this kind presents 
 itself almost at the beginning of the review, 
 and as it involves the main point of the con- 
 
 * "Capital is commodities." "Capital is allowed to 
 be correctly described under the title of hoarded labour." 
 — Mill. 
 
 f " If the wine which is put in the cellar is increased 
 in value one-tenth by being kept a year, one-tenth more 
 of labour may be correctly considered as having been ex- 
 pended upon it." — Mill. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 21 
 
 troversy I shall task your patience by quoting 
 the entire passage : — 
 
 " We are willing to admit, in behalf of this 
 author, a matter of some importance, which he 
 himself appears to be little aware of, that it 
 is impossible to expound the doctrines of poli- 
 tical economy in language altogether unexcep- 
 tionable, without a new nomenclature ; or 
 giving such a technical, and unusual meaning 
 to old terms, as would certainly occasion more 
 obstruction to a learner, than using language 
 as nearly as possible in its ordinary accept- 
 ation, when some degree of laxity is hardly 
 to be avoided. This only becomes a vice re- 
 quiring philosophical rebuke, when it intro- 
 duces confusion of ideas ; that is, when a word 
 of double meaning is so used, that the ideas 
 belonging to one sense are suggested, when 
 the truth of the proposition requires the ideas 
 which are comprehended in the other. To 
 make this clear by an example: — the word 
 1 dog' signifies two things ; an animal, and 
 a star. The words are never improperly 
 applied, when the context shows in which of 
 the senses it is that the word is employed. 
 But if the context is such, that we are under- 
 
22 A LETTER TO 
 
 stood as speaking of the animal; as if we 
 should say, '• the dog has two ears and four 
 feet ; ' and then we should suddenly add, 
 the dog also shines,' this would evidently be 
 an abuse of the terms, and justly censurable. 
 
 " Mr. Ricardo used the word ' value' in two 
 senses. He did so avowedly. It has always 
 been remarked, as well by those who have 
 adopted, as by those who have opposed, his doc- 
 trines. Mr. Ricardo conceived, erroneously 
 we think, that it would be good to attempt 
 the introduction of ynore precision into the 
 language of political economy, by giving a 
 technical meaning to the word ' value? But 
 he did not imagine, for that reason, that he 
 could altogether dispense with the use of the 
 word in its more ordinary acceptation ; nor 
 could he have done so without such innova- 
 tions of language as would have been very in- 
 convenient to his readers, as well as himself. 
 
 V It frequently happens in fact, that when 
 a new word, or a new acceptation of a word, 
 is proposed, the best and sometimes the only 
 expedient for procuring it admission is, to use 
 it along with the more ordinary and lax ex- 
 presswihs ; when the value of it becoming more 
 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 23 
 
 and more known, it gradually supersedes the 
 less appropriate expressions. 
 
 " Had the term ' value' been the best that 
 could have been chosen for the peculiar and 
 technical sense in which Mr. Ricardo employed 
 it, which we have always thought it was not, 
 still it would, in our opinion, have been judi- 
 cious to use the word in the sense of exchange- 
 able value, in those passages where he could 
 not avoid that use of it without further innova- 
 tions in language. It would have been a suffi- 
 cient reason for this, had there been no other, 
 that too many innovations should not be 
 attempted at once, unless where there happens 
 to be, as in Chemistry, a predisposition to admit 
 them. Had Mr. Ricardo ventured upon more, his 
 book would have been still more embarrassing 
 to the learner than it is. In introducing a new 
 meaning of a term, without being able to dis- 
 pense altogether with the old, it is incumbent 
 upon writers to keep them distinct, and make 
 their context always indicate clearly in which 
 of the two meanings the word should be re- 
 ceived. This, we think, Mr. Ricardo has done, 
 with extraordinary vigilance and success.'' 
 Tn the midst of the Hrv discussions of Political 
 
24 A LETTER TO 
 
 Economy, a touch of the imagination is like an 
 oasis in the desert. I have seldom met with a 
 purer fancy-piece than the whole of this re- 
 presentation. Poetry and Science occasionally 
 appear to change characters. A modern 
 minstrel tells us, that 
 
 " Song is but the eloquence of truth ;" 
 and here we have strong evidence that philo- 
 sophy sometimes degenerates into the colouring 
 of fiction. 
 
 Could Mr. Ricardo revisit the scene of his 
 labours, he would be astonished at this repre- 
 sentation of his meaning and intentions ; and 
 while he would not fail to admire the specious- 
 ness of the defence set up in his behalf, he 
 would most certainly feel no disposition to 
 incur the dubious credit which it would entail 
 upon him. 
 
 In fact nothing is more easy, when an author 
 has used a word in two senses without being 
 conscious of it, than for any one to make out 
 a plausible case to save his reputation. Begin 
 by asserting without proof (for that would en- 
 cumber you) that he had the two meanings 
 distinctly in view, notwithstanding the cir- 
 cumstance that only one appears in his de- 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 25 
 
 finition, and that he was in fact wonderfully- 
 successful in making them visible. Cite no 
 instance yourself; but if any objections are 
 brought against any of his conclusions on the 
 ground of the original definition, boldly assert 
 that, in the passage referred to, he used the 
 term in the second meaning and never dreamed 
 of employing it in the first. And if any in- 
 stance is brought in which the second meaning 
 will not apply, immediately revert to the other. 
 By this intellectual see-saw you will gain a 
 double advantage, for it will appear not only 
 that your client has had a perspicacious dis- 
 cernment of the subject, but that his opponents 
 have been employing themselves in drawing 
 conclusions against his doctrines in which he 
 himself would perfectly coincide. The ob- 
 jections are good if the term is taken in one 
 sense, but neither he nor any one else ever 
 dreamed of taking it in that sense, and therefore 
 the objections are pure logomachy, fighting 
 with shadows, conclusions which no one ever 
 disputed, instances of mere ostentation and 
 parade of controversy. 
 
 But the reviewer is not even content with 
 
26 A LETTER TO 
 
 all this, but enters into a defence of the 
 practice of using the same word in two senses. 
 Laying Heaven and Earth under contribution 
 for an illustration, he shows how very innocent 
 it may be by the instance of the word dog, 
 which he tells us signifies both an animal and 
 a star, and yet the term is never improperly 
 applied, nor are the ideas ever blended. He 
 is perfectly right : stars and quadrupeds have 
 passed under the same name without being 
 confounded, without any one gravely main- 
 taining "stellam latrare quia stella quaedam 
 Canis dicitur." Nay he might have pushed 
 the matter further, for not only have stars been 
 called dogs but many heterogeneous things 
 have been called stars, and yet no obscurity or 
 confusion seems to have ensued. These lumi- 
 naries of Heaven are (to borrow the language 
 of a noble poet) 
 
 " A beauty and a mystery, and create 
 In us such love and reverence from afar 
 That fortune, fame, power, life, have named themselves 
 a star." 
 
 A most triumphant proof of the harmlessness 
 of calling two things by the same name. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 27 
 
 I would beseech the critic, however, to re- 
 collect the way in which all confusion has been 
 obviated, and to consider seriously whether in 
 the case of the term " dog," as applied to a 
 four footed animal and a star, the impossibility 
 of confounding the two things has not arisen 
 from one being an opaque and the other a 
 luminous body, and both of determinate figures; 
 and whether the same practice could possibly 
 be equally harmless in the case of the term 
 " value," when the two ideas for which it stands 
 in the minds of certain economists are both of 
 them evidently destitute of native light and 
 definite outline ? 
 
 I would beg him further to consider whe- 
 ther a more appropriate illustration of the 
 subject would not be attained by dismissing 
 the star altogether, descending from the clouds, 
 and substituting the hypothesis that he (the 
 reviewer) kept two dogs, both of which from 
 one of those whims incident to great minds, 
 he called by the same name : and, in this case, 
 whether when he summoned one dog to his 
 side, the wrong animal, owing to this parsimony 
 of appellation, might not make his appearance, 
 
28 A LETTER TO 
 
 or whether both might not come runnino- to 
 him at once, quarrelling perhaps for prece- 
 dence, and urging discordant claims to his 
 notice, while his hand, stretched out to bestow 
 the usual caress, remained suspended in all 
 the fixed irresolution of the ass between the 
 two bundles of hay, or perchance oscillated 
 irregularly from one to the other, or what 
 w r ould be still worse, received an unforeseen 
 wound from the mordacious eagerness of the 
 rival claimants. 
 
 Seriously, it would be quite as much as 
 could be demanded, if the exposition of Mr. Ri- 
 cardo's views above cited were met by simply 
 pronouncing it altogether the progeny of the 
 reviewer's imagination ; but I shall attempt 
 to exhibit its true character at full length. 
 
 It represents Mr. Ricardo, you will observe, 
 as deliberately and purposely using the word 
 value in two senses, one a lax and ordinary, 
 the other a peculiar and technical sense, and 
 this with the express design of introducing 
 precision into the language of political econo- 
 my : further, that he always successfully 
 indicated by the context in which of the 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 29 
 
 senses he wished the term to be understood ; 
 and that his double employment of it has 
 always been remarked by his supporters as 
 well as opponents. 
 
 In contradiction to these assertions, and to 
 the tenor of the whole passage, I shall en- 
 deavour to show, 
 
 1. That the use of the word value in two 
 meanings by Mr. Ricardo has not been 
 always remarked both by his supporters 
 and opponents. 
 
 2. That Mr. Ricardo did not avowedly use 
 the word in a double sense, but on the 
 contrary professedly used it in one sense 
 only. 
 
 3. That Mr. Ricardo did not keep the two 
 meanings distinct and make the context 
 clearly indicate in which of the two 
 meanings the word should be received, 
 and this for the simple reason that he 
 was unconscious of employing it in 
 more than one. 
 
 4. That Mr. Ricardo did not consider him- 
 self as employing the word value in any 
 
30 A LETTER TO 
 
 new, peculiar, and technical sense, and 
 therefore could never entertain the in- 
 genious design here imputed to him of 
 giving more precision to the language of 
 political economy by the profound ex- 
 pedient of using the same term sometimes 
 in one sense and sometimes in another. 
 5. That Mr. Ricardo's employment of the 
 term value in what the reviewer styles 
 a new, peculiar, and technical sense, or 
 in other words Mr. Ricardo's unconscious 
 departure from his own definition, had 
 not even the merit of originality, as a 
 similar unconscious departure from the 
 received definition of the term is to be 
 observed in the economists who pre- 
 ceded him. 
 
 It is fortunate that in the statements of the 
 reviewer on this subject there is the valuable 
 quality of explicitness. There can be no 
 mistake as to what he means, no misconception 
 of the position which he has taken. On con- 
 sulting the review, nevertheless, you will 
 perceive one lamentable deficiency — a de- 
 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 31 
 
 ficiency which I greatly deplore : there are 
 unfortunately no instances adduced in support 
 of the representations there given of Mr. Ri- 
 cardo's views and meaning. All rests on the 
 assertions of the critic: he seems to labour 
 under some indomitable shyness of proof. 
 Surely, if Mr. Ricardo avowedly used the word 
 in two senses, it would be easy to cite his 
 avowal : if he successfully made the context 
 clearly indicate the meaning, it would be easy 
 to take his first chapter and show how in- 
 variably this was the case. 
 
 Such a procedure was the more necessary 
 as, in the Dissertation under review, a par- 
 ticular citation is given of Mr. Ricardo's defi- 
 nition, and an attempt is made to show, by 
 quotations from his work, that the second mean- 
 ing of the term was unconsciously introduced ; 
 that Mr. Ricardo was not fully aware of it; 
 that he lapsed from his own definition without 
 an adequate apprehension of what he was 
 about. 
 
 To any one who replies to such an analysis 
 and examination by mere assertion, no courtesy 
 can deem an answer necessary; but the task 
 
32 A LETTER TO 
 
 is, in the present case, so easy that there is no 
 inducement to decline it. 
 
 1. First, let us examine the assertion, that the 
 employment of the word in two senses by 
 Mr. Ricardo has al ways' been remarked 
 by both his supporters and opponents. 
 Two of Mr. Ricardo's principal followers, 
 who have expounded his doctrines in elemen- 
 tary works, are Mr. Mill and Mr. M c Culloch. 
 On a careful perusal of the first and second 
 edition of the Elements of the former, and of 
 the article Political Economy written by the 
 latter for the Encyclopedia Britannica, I can 
 find no intimation whatever in either of these 
 works, that the term value was employed in 
 two senses by Mr. Ricardo. It might natu- 
 rally be expected that if so important a word 
 had been employed in such a manner by the 
 most celebrated economist of the day, thus 
 necessarily giving a colouring to his doctrines 
 and his language, two elementary works, pro- 
 fessing to explain the most recent doctrines of 
 the science, would apprise us of the circum- 
 stance, were it merely to warn the student 
 against any ambiguity to which it might lead. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 33 
 
 Not only however is there no intimation given 
 that Mr. Ricardo used the word in two distinct 
 acceptations, but not the slightest expression 
 is dropped throughout the whole of these 
 treatises from which it could be inferred that 
 the writers were aware of the term being liable 
 to such a double use. 
 
 This circumstance would be more remark- 
 able in the case of Mr. M c Culloch, if the 
 assertion of the critic were true, because he has 
 bestowed considerable pains at the outset of 
 his treatise to guard his readers against the 
 confusion arising from another double employ- 
 ment of the term value, namely in the sense of 
 value in use as well as of value in exchange ; 
 an ambiguity first pointed out by the author 
 of the Wealth of Nations. 
 
 11 To confound these different sorts ot 
 value," says Mr. M c Culloch, " would evidently 
 lead to the most erroneous conclusions. And 
 hence, to avoid all chance of error from mis- 
 taking the sense of so important a word as 
 value, we shall never use it except to signify 
 exchangeable worth, or value in exchange*." 
 * Encyclop. Britt. Sup. Vol. vi, p. 217- 
 
 D 
 
34 A LETTER TO 
 
 Now if Mr. M c Culloch had been aware of 
 a third sense of the word, if he had " re- 
 marked " that Mr. Ricardo used it in a pecu- 
 liar technical sense, distinct from value in 
 exchange, it would have been extraordinary 
 indeed not to take the opportunity of apprising 
 his readers of it when he was professedly en- 
 gaged in clearing the term from ambiguity. 
 
 There is also presumptive proof that Mr. 
 Mill had not " remarked" the use of the term 
 in two senses by Mr. Ricardo. In his sections, 
 which treat professedly of exchangeable value, 
 that is, power of purchasing, he gives us no 
 intimation of the existence of any other sort 
 of value ; and yet he affirms that a commodity 
 can " remain an accurate measure of value 
 only if it remain of the same value itself." 
 Here, according to the reviewer, Mr. Mill must 
 have passed from the sense of exchangeable 
 value to the " peculiar technical" meaning; for 
 he (the reviewer) tells us, that when Mr. Ri- 
 cardo asserts that a measure must be invariable 
 in value, " he does not mean invariable in its 
 power of purchasing, quite the contrary," and 
 it may be presumed that his followers are 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 35 
 
 entitled to the benefit of the same remark when 
 they maintain the necessity of invariableness. 
 
 But if Mr. Mill has used the word in Mr. 
 Ricardo's peculiar and technical sense, without 
 any intimation to his readers, and in a section, 
 too, where he is professedly treating of ex- 
 changeable value, there is only one inference 
 to be drawn ; namely, that he did not remark 
 the use of the word in two senses either by 
 Mr. Ricardo, or what is still more extraor- 
 dinary by himself. 
 
 In the third edition of Mill's Elements, and 
 in the second and amended edition of the 
 article Political Economy, published in a sepa- 
 rate form by Mr. M c Culloch, there are indeed 
 explanations introduced for the first time inti- 
 mating that the term value is used in two 
 senses, one having reference to the power of 
 purchasing, the other to the quantity of pro- 
 ducing labour. Both these editions, however, 
 appeared after the authors had seen the Criti- 
 cal Dissertation on Value, to which indeed 
 one of the writers (Mr. M c Culloch) has had 
 the candour to refer ; the inference therefore 
 is, that these explanations were introduced in 
 
 d 2 
 
36 A LETTER TO 
 
 consequence of the remarks in that work, and 
 it is scarcely possible to imagine that these 
 writers were previously at all aware of any 
 double meaning of the term in the writings of 
 Mr. Ricardo. 
 
 But there is a still stronger and more direct 
 refutation of the reviewer's assertion, that the 
 employment of the word by Mr. Ricardo in 
 two senses was always remarked by those who 
 adopted his doctrines. 
 
 The author of the Templars' Dialogues, who 
 as an expounder of Mr. Ricardo's views on 
 this subject takes his place in the first rank, 
 and against whose exposition many of my 
 strictures were directed, far from agreeing 
 with the Westminster critic, affirms that 
 " Mr. Ricardo sternly insists on the true 
 sense of the word value, and (what is still 
 more unusual to most men) insists on using 
 it but in one sense*." 
 
 The next authority, which I have to produce, 
 is if possible still more to the purpose. You 
 will be startled when I name the Westminster 
 
 * London Magazine, p. 344. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 37 
 
 Review itself. Yet so it is. In an express 
 defence of Mr. Ricardo against the Quarterly- 
 Review there is the following passage, which 
 I did not see till my own treatise had been 
 committed to the press : otherwise I might 
 have been tempted to support my opinions by 
 so indisputable an authority. 
 
 " Value is a relative term : if it is not this, 
 it is nothing : if any one talks about absolute 
 value, or any other kind of value than exchange- 
 able value ice know not what he means*." 
 
 It appears, then, that in the year 1825 the 
 Westminster Reviewers could not understand 
 any one who talked about any kind of value 
 but exchangeable value. 
 
 In the year 1826, however, they discover, 
 not only that there is another kind of value 
 distinct from exchangeable value, but that they 
 had always remarked it ! And, far from not 
 being able to understand any one who talks 
 about it, they regard Mr. Ricardo as having 
 talked about it with great perspicuity. 
 
 Is this — can it be — an instance of the new 
 rhetorical figure called see-saw, on which the 
 * Westminster Review, Vol. iii, p. 224 
 
38 A LETTER TO 
 
 Westminster Reviewers delight to expatiate 
 when they detect it in the writings of others ? 
 The see-saw of private passions is quite as 
 worthy of admiration as that of political in- 
 terests. 
 
 What then is the unavoidable conclusion 
 from all these citations ? If we find expo- 
 sitions of Mr. Ricardo's doctrines omitting all 
 notice of any double use of the term ; if we 
 find another exposition of his doctrines possi- 
 tively asserting that he sternly insisted on 
 using the term in one sense and one sense 
 only ; and if we see the Westminster Reviewers 
 themselves unreservedly declaring that they 
 know not what any one means who talks of 
 any kind of value but exchangeable value, 
 have we not conclusive proof that Mr. Ri- 
 cardo's followers were entirely ignorant of his 
 having employed the word in two senses ? 
 
 Would it be possible for professed disciples 
 of Mr. Ricardo to write in this way if the 
 assertion of the reviewers were true, that the 
 use of the word in two senses by that writer 
 had always been remarked both by his sup- 
 porters and opponents ? 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 39 
 
 2. Let us proceed, in the second place, to 
 examine the assertion, that Mr. Ricardo 
 himself avowedly used the word in two 
 senses, and was of course perfectly aware 
 of both. 
 If an author purposely uses an important 
 word in two senses, particularly a word which 
 designates the subject of his reasonings, we 
 should naturally expect to find such an in- 
 tention manifested at the time he professes to 
 define the said word. It would be a very ex- 
 traordinary sort of procedure, if when engaged 
 in the preliminary business of definition, he 
 should not only suppress all intimation of his 
 design to make a double use of the term, but 
 lead us to suppose that there was only one 
 sense in which he purposed to employ it. 
 This would at all events be a strange way of 
 avowedly using the word in two meanings. 
 But this course of proceeding might be alleged 
 against Mr. Ricardo, if the assertion of the 
 reviewers were correct. He begins by adopting 
 the language of Adam Smith, which ascribes 
 indeed two meanings to the word value, namely 
 value in use and value in exchange : but in 
 
40 A LETTER TO 
 
 consonance with the practice of other writers 
 on Political Economy and the design of the 
 science, the consideration of the former is 
 dropped, and consequently the only remaining 
 kind of value is the latter # . In this preli- 
 minary adjustment of the meaning of the term, 
 there is not the slightest hint of a third mean- 
 ing : we have no intimation given us that we 
 have still two kinds of value left on hand : 
 and as this was the proper place to avow his 
 intention of using the word in two senses, we 
 may presume that he had no intention of the 
 sort. 
 
 Further, it sometimes happens that an au- 
 thor's view of his subject may be gathered 
 from the titles of his chapters or divisions. It is 
 generally conceived that he places them there 
 to inform his readers what he is writing about. 
 In the present instance Mr. Ricardo, not con- 
 
 * It is to this distinction that the reviewer's quota- 
 tion from the Oxford Rudiments of Logic is applicable. 
 Value in the sense of value in exchange is a technical 
 term of precise meaning *' vox artis, ex communi ser- 
 mone sumpta," while in the sense of utility or importance 
 it is " vox in communi usu posita." 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 41 
 
 tent with giving us in the body of his first 
 section a definition of the sense in which he 
 employs the word value, has actually explained 
 his acceptation of it in the title ; " the value of 
 a commodity, or the quantity of any other com- 
 modity for which it will exchange." There 
 can be no doubt, therefore, that the author in 
 this section considered himself as treating of 
 value in exchange alone ; and that if he used 
 the word in any other sense, it was not only 
 unconsciously and without design, but in direct 
 contradiction of his own declaration at the 
 outset. If we track him in the other parts of 
 his book we shall in vain look for any avowal 
 of using the word in two senses. But on this 
 point to say more would be useless. If there is 
 any avowal of the kind, the proof of it is simple. 
 His followers have only to cite it. 
 
 3. But if Mr. Ricardo did not make any 
 avowal of using the word in two senses, 
 it might still be true that he was conscious 
 of so using it, and that he always indi- 
 cated by the context in which sense he 
 wished it to be received. Not avowing 
 
42 A LETTER TO 
 
 his design of using it in two senses might 
 be merely an informality (a strange one 
 it is true) at the commencement, subse- 
 quently remedied by extraordinary vigi- 
 lance and success in distinguishing in 
 each instance the acceptation in which 
 it was employed! 
 Let us do what the reviewer himself ought 
 to have done before he hazarded this eulogium 
 on Mr. Ricardo's extraordinary success in the 
 use of the term ; let us try how far it is borne 
 out by the fact ; let us put to the test some of 
 the positions in which the term is employed. 
 
 " Adam Smith," says he, " who so accurately 
 defined the original source of exchangeable 
 value, and who was bound in consistency to 
 maintain, that all things became more or less 
 valuable in proportion as more or less labour 
 was bestowed on their production, has himself 
 erected another standard measure of value, 
 and speaks of things being more or less valu- 
 able in proportion as they will exchange for 
 more or less of this standard measure. Some- 
 times he speaks of corn, at other times of labour 
 as a standard measure ; not the quantity of 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMI8T. 43 
 
 labour bestowed on the production of any ob- 
 ject, but the quantity which it can command 
 in the market." 
 
 This passage, it must be recollected, occurs 
 in the first section, which sets out with the de- 
 finition of value as the power of purchasing, 
 and which bears the title before quoted. It is 
 evident too on the face of it, that Mr. Ricardo 
 had in his view value in exchange or pur- 
 chasing power. Let us try to carry this sense 
 all through the sentence. It will then read 
 as follows : — 
 
 " Adam Smith, who so accurately defined 
 the original source of purchasing power, and 
 who was bound in consistency to maintain that 
 all things became possessed of more or less of 
 this purchasing power in proportion as more 
 or less labour was bestowed on their produc- 
 tion, has himself erected another standard 
 measure of purchasing power, and speaks of 
 things being more or less powerful in purchas- 
 ing in proportion as they will exchange for 
 more or less of this standard measure. Some- 
 times he speaks of corn, at other times of labour 
 as a standard measure ; not the quantity of 
 
44 A LETTER TO 
 
 labour bestowed on the production of any ob- 
 ject, but the quantity which it can command in 
 the market." 
 
 Now this is evidently what Mr. Ricardo did 
 not intend to say. He could not intentionally, 
 and with a distinct conception of what he was 
 about, find fault with Adam Smith or any one 
 else for maintaining that a thing, A, became 
 more powerful in purchasing because it would 
 exchange for more corn. Nor could there be 
 any inconsistency between this proposition and 
 the other, if the other was intended to assert 
 that A became possessed of more purchasing 
 power in relation to B, as more comparative 
 labour was bestowed upon it. One proposi- 
 tion would have reference to the effect, or rather 
 it would be a mere definition of the phrase 
 " becoming more powerful in purchasing," and 
 the other to the cause of that effect, but there 
 would be no inconsistency between them. As 
 Mr. Ricardo, nevertheless, supposes they are 
 quite inconsistent with each other, he must 
 have unconsciously changed the meaning of 
 the term, and the attentive reader will perceive 
 that he did in fact, labour under such a confu- 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 45 
 
 sion of ideas. Although he begins the passage 
 with speaking of exchangeable value and has 
 just defined it as the power of purchasing, yet 
 he suddenly passes to another meaning and 
 tells us that a commodity, A, becomes more 
 valuable (in a sense which has no reference to 
 purchasing power but to cost of production) 
 as more labour is bestowed upon it, and does 
 not of necessity become more valuable (in 
 the same sense), because it exchanges for more 
 corn. Hence, he argues, that those are wrong 
 who contend that because A exchanges for 
 more corn it has become of greater value : 
 that is, he infers from a sense of the term, 
 which he has himself unconsciously substi- 
 tuted, the erroneousness of a proposition which 
 is perfectly true in that sense of the term with 
 which he commences. 
 
 In fact there are only three possible suppo- 
 sitions on the subject. Either Mr. Ricardo, 
 in this passage, used the term solely in the 
 sense of purchasing power, or he used it solely 
 in that sense of the term which we are told 
 has reference to cost of production, or he used 
 it in both senses. If he used it solely in the 
 
46 A LETTER TO 
 
 first sense, his argument is self-evidently erro- 
 neous. He could not use it solely in the se- 
 cond sense, because he begins the passage by 
 speaking of exchangeable value. The only 
 remaining supposition is that he used it in 
 both senses. But if he used it in both senses, 
 it must have been unconsciously, for he imputes 
 inconsistency to those who maintain two pro- 
 positions which are perfectly compatible in the 
 sense of the term with which he sets out be- 
 cause they are incompatible in the sense which 
 he himself has substituted. 
 
 Let us try further a passage in the same 
 section, in which Mr. Ricardo engages in a 
 controversy with Adam Smith and Mr. Mal- 
 thus, as to the occasions on which it is proper 
 to say that anything rises or falls 'in value. 
 According to the definition in which these 
 three writers coincide, and to the explanation 
 prefixed by Mr. Ricardo announcing the sub- 
 ject of the section, there could not possibly be 
 any doubt in the mind of any one, who had 
 a clear view of the subject, as to what should 
 be called a rise and what a fall of any com- 
 modity whatever. A rise in A would be an 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 47 
 
 increase in its power of purchasing some other 
 commodity B : a fall in B, a decrease in its 
 power of purchasing A. 
 
 When therefore Adam Smith and Mr. Mal- 
 thus contend, that if labour and corn exchange 
 for less gold, it is the gold which has risen in 
 value while the labour and corn have not risen 
 but remained stationary, the right answer 
 would be, " if you mean stationary to each 
 other you are correct, but if you mean station- 
 ary in value to gold you are incorrect; because 
 according to your own definition of value as 
 the power of purchasing, if labour and corn 
 purchase less gold they have become of less 
 value or have fallen in relation to gold." 
 
 But this "is not the answer given by Mr. Ri- 
 cardo : he contends, that if the cause of corn 
 exchanging for less gold is a diminution in the 
 labour necessary. to produce corn, he is bound 
 to call the variation of corn and labour a fall 
 in their value, and not a rise in the value of 
 the things with which they are compared : 
 i. e. (following his own definition) he is bound 
 to call the variation of corn and labour a de- 
 crease of their purchasing power, and not an 
 
48 A LETTER TO 
 
 increase of the purchasing power of the things 
 with which they are compared, as if one could 
 take place without the other. Here is evi- 
 dently another unconscious transition from his 
 adopted acceptation of the word value. He 
 no longer means by it the power of purchasing, 
 although the title prefixed declares that to be 
 the subject of the section. 
 
 The whole chapter on the distinction be- 
 tween value and riches is a decisive proof of 
 the confusion of Mr. Ricardo's ideas on this 
 subject. If we suppose him to use the term 
 value in the sense of cost of production, or in 
 a sense referable to the quantity of producing 
 labour, the whole chapter is a series of truisms, 
 or a truism constantly repeated, that what the 
 labour of a given number of men produces, 
 always costs their labour to produce it. If 
 we suppose him on the other hand to use the 
 term in the sense annexed to it by his own de- 
 finition, his remarks would be almost altogether 
 incorrect. He says, for instance, that the la- 
 bour of a million of men in manufactures al- 
 ways produces the same value. If he intends 
 by this " purchasing power," the assertion is 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 49 
 
 evidently incorrect, for the labour of a million 
 of men may produce an aggregate of com- 
 modities, varying very much in their power of 
 commanding other articles in exchange. If 
 he intends to assert, that the labour of a million 
 of men will always produce a mass of commo- 
 dities which, however varying in quantity, will 
 have cost the same quantity of labour, he is 
 undoubtedly correct ; but whether it was worth 
 while formally to enunciate such a proposition, 
 to insist upon it at length, to repeat and to 
 illustrate it, is another question. 
 
 Most of Mr. Ricardo's other positions in the 
 same chapter coincide with this in proving, 
 that instead of knowingly using the word value 
 in two senses, and making the context clearly 
 indicate in each case the acceptation in which 
 it should be received, he was labouring under 
 an ambiguity of which he was totally uncon- 
 scious. 
 
 That he really considered himself as using 
 it in the ordinary sense annexed to it by poli- 
 tical economists, and in that sense alone, is 
 shown by the circumstance of his finding fault 
 with M. Say, who speaks of it as denoting the 
 
50 A LETTER TO 
 
 power of commanding in exchange, for what 
 he considers as an improper use of it. 
 
 Now, although it might be conceded to Mr. 
 Ricardo that he should use the term in any 
 sense he liked, provided he did it consistently, 
 he could have no plea for attacking the lan- 
 guage of others, who used it in the ordinary 
 sense of purchasing power. The very circum- 
 stance, of his animadverting on others for em- 
 ploying the term as he thought improperly, 
 proves, that he himself considered it as only 
 legitimately possessing one meaning. Why 
 should he find fault with M. Say for saying 
 " the value of incomes is then increased, if 
 they can procure, it does not signify by what 
 means, a greater quantity of products" : a po- 
 sition perfectly correct if the term value is 
 construed in the sense of purchasing power ; 
 in other words, perfectly correct according to 
 Mr. Ricardo's own definition ? Surely had he 
 possessed that clear and distinct perception of 
 the subject which has been attributed to him, 
 that perfect consciousness of two senses in 
 the term value, he would not have failed to 
 make the remark, that the proposition was cor- 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 51 
 
 rect in one acceptation of the word and not in 
 the other. Far from doing this, however, far 
 from pointing out a distinction of this kind, he 
 evidently conceives that there is no other dis- 
 tinction to be made than the common one be- 
 tween value in use and value in exchange ; and 
 it is accordingly with confounding these two 
 meanings that he charges the French economist. 
 
 So far then from its being true, that Mr. Ri- 
 cardo makes the context clearly indicate in 
 which of the two meanings the word should 
 be received, it appears that he confounds 
 them in the same sentence, in a section where 
 he professes to employ the word in only one 
 meaning : further, that he lays down propo- 
 sitions, the enunciation of which can be ac- 
 counted for only by supposing a confusion of 
 the two meanings, since if we construe them 
 in one sense they are incorrect, if we take them 
 in the other they are nugatory : and, lastly, that 
 he animadverts on the language of others in a 
 way which implies that he considered only one 
 legitimate meaning to exist. 
 
 These illustrations you will probably regard as 
 sufficiently conclusive, as to the reviewer's accu 
 
 e 2 
 
52 A LETTER TO 
 
 racy and knowledge of the subject on which 
 he professes to treat. In the Dissertation itself, 
 I have already shown, how Mr. Ricardo was 
 led into the errors, which he has committed on 
 this point ; but it may not be unacceptable to 
 the reader, if I here present the explanation 
 again in different words and at greater length. 
 We have seen, that while Mr. Ricardo pro- 
 fessedly used the term value in one sense only 
 he insensibly lapsed into a different sense ; and 
 the way in which he did this it is not diffi- 
 cult to trace : it was in attempting to explain 
 the cause or regulating principle of value, or, 
 in other words, the circumstance which deter- 
 mines in what quantities commodities are ex- 
 changed for each other. Having adopted the 
 principle, that the value of commodities depends 
 on the comparative quantities of labour re- 
 quired to produce them ; that is, that an article 
 A exchanges for 2 B, or is double the value of 
 B, because one of the former requires as much 
 labour to produce it as two of the latter, he in- 
 advertently concluded, that if A always required 
 the same labour it would always remain of the 
 same value. Had he constantly taken along 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 53 
 
 with him, or borne in mind, his definition 
 of value as the power of purchasing, this is a 
 conclusion to which he could never have come; 
 for the proposition, that A would always have 
 the same purchasing power if produced by an 
 invariable quantity of labour, would have im- 
 mediately carried his mind to the considera- 
 tion of some commodity in relation to which 
 this purchasing power was to exist. But the 
 term value, from the vagueness of its common 
 use, does not necessarily or even ordinarily carry 
 the mind to the consideration of any corre- 
 lative ; and hence Mr. Ricardo, in common with 
 Adam Smith and other writers, appears to have 
 lost sight of a correlative being necessarily im- 
 plied by the definition with which they set out 
 The right conclusion from his doctrine, which 
 affirms labour to be the sole regulating prin- 
 ciple of value, is, that two commodities would 
 always be of the same value in relation to each 
 other, so long as they required the same labour 
 to produce them ; but Mr. Ricardo, losing sight 
 of relativeness in the term value, concluded 
 that one commodity, without reference to any 
 other, would always be of the same value, if 
 
54 A LETTER TO 
 
 produced by the same labour : and hence that 
 a thing would increase or decrease in this pro- 
 perty of value, not in relation to other commo- 
 dities, but considered in itself, in proportion as 
 it required more or less labour for its produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Now here we have clearly, first, an uncon- 
 scious transition from the original meaning, a 
 substitution of one sense for another, in conse- 
 quence of not keeping the definition properly 
 in view, but suffering a different and laxer sense 
 to displace it ; and, secondly, we have an infe- 
 rence deduced from this substituted meaning 
 which does not follow from the original one. 
 
 The passage in Mr. Ricardo's book where 
 this transition is made, the turning point, if I 
 may so call it, is in the very first section. 
 Having quoted a few sentences from Adam 
 Smith, which explain that in rude ages the 
 quantities in which commodities were ex- 
 changed would be determined by the quan- 
 tities of labour necessary to acquire them, he 
 proceeds, " If the quantity of labour realized 
 in commodities regulate their exchangeable 
 value, every increase of the quantity of labour 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 55 
 
 must augment the value of that commodity on 
 which it is exercised, as every diminution 
 must lower it." Now here Mr. Ricardo be- 
 gins with using value in the sense of exchange- 
 able value, or purchasing power, and as he 
 uses it in that sense in the premises, he is bound 
 to do it in the conclusion : and the conclusion 
 is true enough, if he means that every increase 
 of the quantity of labour must augment the 
 value of that commodity on which it is exer- 
 cised in relation to other commodities, which 
 continued to require only the same labour as 
 before. This, however, although perfectly con- 
 sonant with his doctrines, will not be found to 
 have been Mr. Ricardo's peculiar meaning. 
 In this proposition he did not extend his view 
 beyond the one commodity : the word value 
 did not carry him over, as the phrase power of 
 purchasing would have done, to the consider- 
 ation of some other. An attentive reader will 
 perceive his meaning to have been, that every 
 increase of labour would augment the value of 
 the commodity on which it was exercised, 
 without reference to any other commodity. 
 This proposition is the hook, from which all 
 his other propositions inconsistent with his 
 
56 A LETTER TO 
 
 own definition depend. This one false step 
 made, he very logically falls into the ob- 
 scurities and paradoxes which have excited the 
 admiration of his disciples, and the astonish- 
 ment of every body else. 
 
 4. I proceed, in the next place, to show, that 
 Mr. Ricardo did not consider himself as 
 employing the word value in any new, 
 peculiar, and technical sense, and therefore 
 could not entertain the ingenious design 
 imputed to him in the Review, of giving 
 more precision to the language of Political 
 Economy by the profound expedient of 
 using the term sometimes in one sense 
 and sometimes in another. 
 In the first section he says, "If I have to 
 hire a labourer for a week, and instead of ten 
 shillings I pay him eight, no variation having 
 taken place in the value of money, the la- 
 bourer can probably obtain more food and ne- 
 cessaries with his eight shillings than he before 
 obtained for ten ; but this is owing, not to a 
 .rise in the real value of his wages, as stated by 
 Adam Smith, and more recently by Mr. Mal- 
 thus, but to a fall in the value of the things on 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 57 
 
 which his wages are expended, things per- 
 fectly distinct : and yet, for calling this a fall 
 in the real value of wages, I am told that I 
 adopt new and unusual language, not recon- 
 cileable with the true principles of the science. 
 To me it appears that the unusual, and indeed 
 inconsistent, language is that used by my op- 
 ponents." 
 
 Now the whole of this passage would be 
 erroneous, if the term value were to be taken 
 in the usual sense of purchasing power ; it 
 must, therefore, on the reviewer's hypothesis, be 
 taken in the new, peculiar, and technical sense, 
 which Mr. Ricardo is represented as designing 
 to introduce ; and yet we find Mr. Ricardo him- 
 self disclaiming the imputation of novelty, and 
 persisting that there is nothing unusual in his 
 employment of terms. 
 
 Nay, so unconscious was Mr. Ricardo of 
 treating of any kind of value but exchangeable 
 value, that we find him in one place combining 
 the two epithets by which he is supposed to 
 distinguish one from the other, and speaking of 
 real value in exchange* . 
 
 * Principles of Pol. Econ. p. 506, Third Edition. 
 
Ob A LETTER TO 
 
 It is also maintained by his followers — by- 
 some of them at least — that there was nothing 
 novel in Mr. Ricardo's use of the term value, 
 except the consistency with which he employed 
 it. The author of the Templars' Dialogues, 
 after eulogizing him for his strict adherence to 
 one meaning, denies that there was any thing 
 new in his mode of using it ; and in answer to 
 Mr. Malthus's complaint, of the obscurity arising 
 from Mr. Ricardo's unusual application of com- 
 mon terms, maintains, that " there is nothing 
 at all unusual in his application of any term 
 whatever, but only in the steadiness with which 
 he keeps to the same application of it # ." 
 
 5. Having disposed of the four first propo- 
 sitions which I undertook to substantiate, 
 I hasten to the last, and shall endeavour 
 to show, that Mr. Ricardo's departure from 
 the received definition of the term had 
 not even the merit of originality, since a 
 similar deviation is to be observed in prior 
 writers ; so that, if to save his credit it is 
 maintained that he purposely used the 
 * London Mag. April 1824, p. 345. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 59 
 
 word in two meanings, the same plea 
 
 must be extended to the economists who 
 
 preceded him ; a circumstance quite fatal 
 
 to the assertion of the reviewer, as to 
 
 Mr. Ricardo's design of introducing more 
 
 precision into the language of the science. 
 
 When Adam Smith, after having denned 
 
 value to be purchasing power, goes on to say, 
 
 that labour never varies in its own value, he 
 
 evidently deviates from that definition, and 
 
 passes into a sense of the term in which nc 
 
 power of purchasing is implied. Labour, he 
 
 says, sometimes purchases a greater, sometimes 
 
 a smaller quantity of goods, but it is their 
 
 value which varies, not that of the labour which 
 
 purchases them ; a conclusion not true in the 
 
 sense of purchasing power, and therefore, 
 
 if true at all, it must be so in some other 
 
 sense. 
 
 Almost all economists agree in telling us, 
 that a measure of value must be invariable in 
 value, which, according to their own definition, 
 means, that a measure of purchasing power 
 must be invariable in its own purchasing 
 power, or, in other words, must always command 
 the same quantity of all other commodities in 
 
60 A LETTER TO 
 
 exchange : they further tell us, that the use of 
 such a measure is to ascertain variations in 
 value, that is (pursuing their own definition) in 
 the purchasing power of other commodities. 
 But, if the measure is invariable in its pur- 
 chasing power over other commodities, those 
 other commodities must necessarily be inva- 
 riable too ; consequently there can be no fluc- 
 tuations to ascertain ; consequently an inva- 
 riable measure can be of no use for the pur- 
 pose to which they destine it. In saying, 
 therefore, that a measure of value must be in- 
 variable in order to ascertain what commodities 
 have varied, they must have substituted some 
 meaning not included in their definition ; and 
 they have undoubtedly by so doing forestalled 
 the claims to originality in using the word 
 value in two meanings now put forth in behalf 
 of Mr. Ricardo. Or, if these two meanings are 
 not precisely those of the latter author, the 
 economists in question are entitled to the praise 
 of having got the start of him in this singu- 
 larly adroit expedient for introducing precision 
 into the language of the science. 
 
 This expedient is itself a thing so extraor- 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 61 
 
 dinary, that, now we have got through the five 
 positions which I have endeavoured to esta- 
 blish, it really deserves a share of attention. 
 I had always, I own, been accustomed to con- 
 sider it as an imperative rule never to use a 
 term in two senses, in any scientific or philo- 
 sophical discussion. I had always thought with 
 Locke, that the least that can be expected is, 
 " that in all discourses, wherein one man pre- 
 tends to instruct or convince another, he should 
 use the same word constantly in the same 
 sense : if this were done (which nobody can 
 refuse without great disingenuity) many of the 
 books extant might be spared ; many of the 
 controversies in dispute would be at an end ; 
 several of those great volumes, swoln with am- 
 biguous words, now used in one sense and by 
 and by in another, would shrink into a very 
 narrow compass ; and many of the philo- 
 sophers' (to mention no other) as well as poets' 
 works, might be contained in a nutshell*." 
 
 In another place the same eminent philo- 
 sopher observes, " A great abuse of words is 
 inconstancy in the use of them. It is hard to 
 * Locke's Essay, Book iv, Chap xi. 
 
62 
 
 A LETTER TO 
 
 find a discourse written of any subject, espe- 
 cially of controversy, wherein one shall not 
 observe, if he read with attention, the same 
 words (and those commonly the most material 
 in the discourse, and upon which the argument 
 turns) used sometimes for one collection of sim- 
 ple ideas, and sometimes for another; which 
 is a perfect abuse of language. Words being 
 intended for signs of my ideas, to make them 
 known to others, not by any natural signifi- 
 cation but by voluntary imposition, it is plain 
 cheat and abuse, when I make them stand 
 sometimes for one thing and sometimes for 
 another ; the wilful doing whereof can be im- 
 puted to nothing but great folly or greater 
 dishonesty # ." 
 
 Regarding these views as universally enter- 
 tained by philosophers, the plan of the re- 
 viewer took me by surprise ; nor, after all the 
 pains I have taken to comprehend the design, can 
 I distinctly perceive how the employment of a 
 word in two senses is to bring about its em- 
 ployment in only one of those senses, and thus 
 introduce greater precision of language. I am 
 * Ibid. Book iv, Chap. x. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 63 
 
 perplexed to discover in what manner the con- 
 tinued use of a word in its old and lax accept- 
 ation can lead to its disuse in that sense, or 
 at all contribute to the reception of a new and 
 stricter meaning. The critic theorises as if 
 old meanings of words could be treated like 
 old servants, who, having grown supine in their 
 offices, are only retained to teach their suc- 
 cessors the mysteries of the service on which 
 they have entered. To one of my humble ca- 
 pacity it appears, that the old meaning, instead 
 of lending any assistance to the new, would 
 take every opportunity of thwarting its move- 
 ments. In fine I am irresistibly led to think, 
 that the simplest way of establishing the strict 
 employment of a word in one sense is to use 
 it in no other. My hesitation at differing on 
 such a point from the authority of the reviewer 
 is a little relieved by knowing that I am sup- 
 ported in my opinion by some distinguished 
 philosophers. Mr. Dugald Stewart, in whose 
 works there are some admirable remarks on 
 the subject of language as an instrument of 
 thought and communication, thus describes the 
 plan which he has pursued in trying to intro- 
 
64 A LETTER TO 
 
 duce some degree of precision into his pecu- 
 liar department of study. 
 
 " I have frequently had occasion," says he, 
 " in the course of the foregoing disquisitions, 
 to regret the obscurity in which this depart- 
 ment of philosophy is involved, by the vague- 
 ness and ambiguity of words ; and I have 
 mentioned, at the same time, my unwilling- 
 ness to attempt verbal innovations, wherever I 
 could possibly avoid them, without essential 
 injury to my argument. The rule, which I 
 have adopted in my own practice, is to give 
 to every faculty and operation of the mind its 
 own appropriate name, following, in the se- 
 lection of this name, the prevalent use of our 
 best writers ; and endeavouring afterwards, as 
 far as I have been able, to employ each word 
 exclusively in that acceptation in which it 
 has been hitherto used most generally. In 
 the judgments which I have formed on points 
 of this sort, it is more than probable, that I 
 may sometimes have been mistaken ; but the 
 mistake is of little consequence, if I myself 
 have invariably annexed the same meaning to 
 the same phrase ; an accuracy which I am 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 65 
 
 not so presumptuous as to imagine that I have 
 uniformly attained, but which I am conscious 
 of having, at least, uniformly attempted*." 
 
 Such is the simple plan which naturally 
 suggests itself in cases of this nature. The 
 ingenious theory of verbal double-dealing pro- 
 pounded by the critic, seems to have originated 
 in that fruitful source of crude speculation, a 
 half-mastery of the subject in hand, sufficient 
 to afford casual glimpses, but not complete and 
 steady views. The inventor of it, whoever he 
 was, had probably heard, that the best method 
 to be pursued of introducing precision into the 
 language of science is the careful use of a 
 word in one uniform sense, a procedure which 
 if it w r ere adopted by the best authors would 
 gradually supersede the more lax employment 
 of the term by writers in general. In the subtle 
 theory before us, however, this method has 
 undergone a slight metamorphosis : two mean- 
 ings are to couch themselves under the same 
 term in the same treatise, and like two curs 
 turned into one kennel, they are to snarl and 
 
 * Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 
 toI. ii, p. 3, Second Edition. 
 
 F 
 
66 A LETTER TO 
 
 wrano-le till the inharmonious contest has ter- 
 minated in the expulsion of the prior occu- 
 pant. 
 
 While on this part of the subject, I may own 
 that I admit the force of the reviewer's appeal 
 against the word value being considered as 
 having a divine right to be used in one sense 
 more than another ; or, perhaps more properly, 
 against one meaning being considered as hav- 
 ing a divine right to the term in which I have 
 endeavoured to re-instal it, and I beg ex- 
 pressly to declare, in order to allay any repub- 
 lican horror which I may have inadvertently 
 excited on this head, that I intended to set up 
 no claim of the kind. My views were entirely 
 limited to rights acquired by election, and I 
 simply meant to contend, that economists 
 having by free choice elevated one meaning 
 to the sovereignty, should not exhibit the dis- 
 creditable spectacle of divided allegiance. 
 
 If I have been at all successful in establish- 
 ing the preceding five positions, almost all the 
 assertions of the critic respecting Mr. Ri- 
 cardo's doctrines fall to the ground ; for most 
 of them, without the shadow of argument or 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 6? 
 
 evidence, proceed on the false assumption that 
 Mr. Ricardo purposely employed the word 
 value in two meanings, and clearly indicated, 
 in each instance, the acceptation in which he 
 wished it to be received. The following pas- 
 sages of the Review, for example, scarcely need 
 another word to overturn them : " If there 
 were any commodity, which two hundred years 
 ago was produced by seven days' labour, and 
 which had continued to be in demand and to 
 be produced by the same quantity of labour to 
 the present day, what does Mr. Ricardo say it 
 would do ? That it would remain invariable in 
 its power of purchasing ? That it would in- 
 variably command in exchange the same quan- 
 tity of commodities ? No such thing. Mr. Ri- 
 cardo not only never advanced any such pro- 
 position, but it seems almost incredible, that 
 any body who has read his book, should im- 
 pute it to him." * * * * 
 
 " When Mr. Ricardo says ' standard mea- 
 sure of value/ he means a commodity invaria- 
 ble in the labour which goes to its production. 
 He does not mean invariable in its power of 
 purchasing, quite the contrary." 
 
 f 2 
 
68 A LETTER TO 
 
 To all this it is a sufficient answer, that 
 Mr. Ricardo, in his first section, defines value 
 to be the power of purchasing ; in the same 
 section, a few pages further on, without any 
 intimation to his readers of a change in the 
 meaning of the term, he tells us, that a com- 
 modity which always required the same labour 
 to produce it would be invariable in value. 
 According to his own definition, therefore, the 
 phrase implies invariable in purchasing power. 
 That he would have denied this to be his 
 meaning, if any one had asked him whether he 
 intended it, is probable enough ; since it is a 
 very common case for a writer, by losing sight 
 of his original definition, and passing to ano- 
 ther acceptation of an important term, to be 
 led to conclusions which he would instantly 
 disown, if the definition were recalled to his 
 mind. To say in defence of such a one, that 
 in a subsequent part of his work he did not 
 intend the term to be received in the sense 
 which he began by ascribing to it, is only an 
 acknowledgment of the confusion of his ideas, 
 and presents itself to the mind as rather a ludi- 
 crous attempt at justification. There is no 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 69 
 
 better test of such a confusion than his shrink- 
 ing from propositions, which seemed plausible 
 enough while invested in the vagueness of am- 
 biguous language, as soon as their absurdity 
 has been made apparent by the substitution of 
 the definition for the term. 
 
 In the passage last quoted the reviewer says, 
 that by an invariable standard of value Mr. Ri- 
 cardo meant " a commodity invariable in the 
 labour which goes to its production : " in ano- 
 ther part of the review he tells us, that by an 
 invariable standard Mr. Ricardo meant a com- 
 modity " invariable in its accuracy as a test to 
 mark the variations in the purchasing power of 
 other commodities." According to the first 
 description here given of Mr. Ricardo's mean- 
 ing, he becomes chargeable with a number of 
 identical propositions. His position, that if a 
 commodity could be found, which always 
 required the same labour to produce it, it 
 would be of invariable value, sinks into the 
 nugatory assertion, that if it required the same 
 labour it would require the same labour. 
 
 By the second description here quoted of 
 Mr. Ricardo's meaning, the reviewer's com- 
 plete mastery of the subject is rendered still 
 
70 A LETTER TO 
 
 more conspicuous. In what sense a com- 
 modity, such as Mr. Ricardo describes as ne- 
 cessary to constitute an invariable standard, 
 can be said to be " invariable in its accuracy 
 as a test to mark the variations in the pur- 
 chasing power of other commodities,'' it is not 
 for me to divine. Nothing can show these 
 variations but the actual facts of the market : 
 the recorded prices of articles show us, as far 
 as they extend, the relations of these articles to 
 money and to each other ; but this has no sort 
 of dependence on the invariableness of the 
 quantity of labour required to produce the 
 money. In the Dissertation it has been al- 
 ready explained what such a commodity as 
 Mr. Ricardo describes would do. It would 
 enable us to tell the variations in the quantity 
 of labour required to produce commodities ; 
 and even its power of accurately doing this 
 would depend on the condition, that com- 
 modities were to each other in value as the 
 quantities of labour required to produce them. 
 While examining such passages as those on 
 which our attention has just been employed, 
 one is tempted to exclaim, in the language of 
 the Westminster Review itself on another oca- 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 71 
 
 sion, u Can there be a spectacle more repug- 
 nant to that candour and sincerity, which are 
 so essential a part of morality, than a continued 
 attempt to varnish over inconsistencies, and 
 to reconcile in appearance doctrines which are 
 really irreconcileable* ?" 
 
 You will not imagine that I am going to no- 
 tice all the remarks of the critic. It is sufficient 
 to have exhibited the extent and accuracy of 
 his acquaintance with the writings of the eco- 
 nomist whom he professes to defend. There 
 are still remaining, nevertheless, a few of his 
 observations, on which I shall take the liberty 
 of detaining your attention for quite as long 
 a time as their merits require. 
 
 The charge of logomachy you will notice is 
 often repeated. The discussions in the Disser- 
 tation are frequently represented as disputes 
 about words. Independently of showing, as I 
 have already done, that they are discussions 
 about ideas, it would be easy to reply to this 
 accusation in the language of a hundred emi- 
 nent writers. I might quote the words of the 
 Westminster Review itself : — 
 * Vol. i, p/527. 
 
72 A LETTER TO 
 
 " With respect to the controversy being a 
 mere dispute about words, we reply in the lan- 
 language of Condillac, ■ that we think only 
 through the medium of words ; that the art of 
 reasoning is nothing more than a language 
 well arranged ; that however certain the facts 
 of any science may be, we can only communi- 
 cate false or imperfect ideas of them to others, 
 while we want words by which they may be 
 properly expressed ; and that the sciences in 
 general have improved, not only because philo- 
 sophers have applied themselves with more 
 attention than formerly to observe nature, but 
 because they have communicated to their lan- 
 guage that precision and accuracy which they 
 have employed in their observations. By cor- 
 recting their language they have reasoned 
 better."— Vol. iii, p. 522*. 
 
 I might also quote the authority of a writer 
 
 * In quoting this passage I would not be understood as 
 coinciding in every expression. Against some of Con- 
 dillac's first positions, judicious objections have been 
 urged by several writers. — See Dugald Stewarts Elements, 
 vol. ii, chap, ii, sec. 2 ; and Elemens d'Ideologie, par 
 M. Destutt de Tract/, troisieme partie, chap. ix. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 73 
 
 who must be allowed to have paid some atten- 
 tion to points of this nature ; " The sentence, 
 * It is a fruitless verbal debate,' is an assertion 
 of the same complexion with the contemptuous 
 sneers at verbal criticism by the contem- 
 poraries of Bentley. In questions of philo- 
 sophy or divinity, that have occupied the 
 learned, and been the subjects of many suc- 
 cesive controversies, for one instance of mere 
 logomachy, I could bring ten instances of 
 logodaedaly, or verbal legerdemain, which 
 have perilously confirmed prejudices, and with- 
 stood the advancement of truth, in consequence 
 of the neglect of verbal debate, i. e. strict 
 discussion of terms*.' 1 But perhaps it will be 
 better to let the critic receive the merited 
 reprimand from the hands of a brother Ri- 
 cardian. The following passage might have 
 been written expressly for the purpose : 
 
 " For once Phaedrus" (says one of the inter- 
 locutors in the Templars' Dialogues to another) 
 "I am not sorry to hear you using a phrase 
 which is in general hateful to my ears. l A 
 mere dispute about words' is a phrase which 
 
 * Aids to Reflection, by S. T. Coleridge, page 119. 
 
74 A LETTER TO 
 
 we hear daily : and why ? Is it a case of such 
 daily occurrence to hear men disputing about 
 mere verbal differences ? So far from it, I can 
 truly say that I never happened to witness such 
 a dispute in my life — -either in books or in 
 conversation : and indeed, considering the 
 small number of absolute synonymes which 
 any language contains, it is scarcely possible 
 that a dispute on words should arise, which 
 would not also be a dispute about ideas (i. e. 
 about realities). Why then is the phrase in 
 every man's mouth, when the actual occurrence 
 must be so very uncommon ? The reason is this, 
 Phaedrus : such a plea is a ' sophisma pigri 
 intellectus,' which seeks to escape from the 
 effort of mind necessary for the comprehending 
 and solving of any difficulty under the colourable 
 pretext, that it is a question about shadows 
 and not about substances, and one therefore 
 which it is creditable to a man's good sense to 
 decline : a pleasant sophism this, which at the 
 same time flatters a man's indolence and his 
 vanity ! For once, however, I repeat, that I 
 am not sorry to hear such a phrase in your 
 mouth, Phaedrus : I have heard it from you 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 75 
 
 before ; and I will frankly tell you, that you 
 ought to be ashamed of such a plea, which is 
 becoming to a slothful intellect, but very 
 unbecoming to yours. On this account it 
 gives me pleasure that you have at length 
 urged it in a case where you will be obliged to 
 abandon it. If that should happen, remember 
 what I have said : and resolve never more 
 to shrink effeminately from the toil of an 
 intellectual discussion, under any pretence that 
 it is a verbal dispute*." 
 
 So much for accusations of logomachy. 
 Another charge (that of dealing in bad meta- 
 physics) I am not particularly anxious to repel, 
 especially as it is made by one who is evidently 
 an adept in the science, of which even the most 
 obstinate scepticism would be satisfied by any 
 of the ensuing specimens. At the conclusion 
 of the first chapter of the Dissertation on 
 Value, I have stated the following propositions 
 amongst others, as the results of the reasonings 
 in that chapter : — 
 
 "The value of a commodity can be expressed 
 only by a quantity of some other commodity." 
 
 * London Magazine, April 1824, page 349. 
 
76 A LETTER TO 
 
 "A rise in the value of a commodity A, 
 means that an equal quantity of this commo- 
 dity exchanges for a greater quantity than 
 before of the commodity B, in relation to 
 which it is said to rise." 
 
 These propositions the reviewer asserts to 
 be mere identical propositions. "The value 
 of a commodity can be expressed only by a 
 quantity of some other commodity," an iden- 
 tical proposition ! It is hardly necessary to 
 prove the ingenuity of this assertion, which 
 transcends the achievements of the conti- 
 nental mathematicians, who contended, that all 
 the operations of arithmetic and algebra were 
 constant repetitions of the formula a = a. On 
 the ingenious system of the critic, all pro- 
 positions, which could not be denied, would be 
 reduced under this class. For instance, the 
 assertion that the eighth article of the ninth 
 number of the Westminster Review is a master- 
 piece of candid, elegant, courteous, and upright 
 criticism, being quite beyond dispute, would 
 be a mere identical proposition, a nugatory 
 sentence, an idle assertion, for the utterance of 
 which even a schoolboy ought to be whipped. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 77 
 
 The same ingenuity relieves us at once from 
 the labour of becoming acquainted with a 
 number of elaborate works heretofore thought 
 essential, and this, in the present superabund- 
 ance of books, would be a happy deliverance 
 from part of an intolerable pressure. If an expla- 
 nation of what a rise in the value of a commo- 
 dity means, comes under the class of identical 
 propositions, we may at once disburthen our- 
 selves of those weighty incumbrances on our 
 shelves, lexicons and vocabularies. On this 
 sweeping principle, Dr. Johnson's two folios are 
 a string of nugatory propositions wanting the 
 copula, and even Crabbe's technological quartos 
 a continual repetition that a thing is what it is. 
 What a cheap victory over the difficulties of a 
 language ! To learn a word, parrot-like, is 
 every thing; all explanation is nugatory ; and 
 to define what a word means is merely asserting 
 that the same is the same. 
 
 To some authors this doctrine would be of 
 inestimable value. To define their terms, 
 which is often inconvenient, would be a super- 
 fluous elaboration of identical propositions. 
 Freed from this troublesome necessity, they 
 
78 A LETTER TO 
 
 might astonish their readers with all the magic 
 of paradox, without any fear of having their 
 own definition hurled amidst the gay creation, 
 putting the whole to flight as instantaneously 
 as the short exclamation of Tam O'Shanter 
 routed the merry party of midnight witches. 
 
 The same profound acquaintance with meta- 
 physics doubtless prompted its possessor to tax 
 the author of the Dissertation with having 
 committed " a metaphysical blunder" in calling 
 cost of production a cause of value. " Cost of 
 production," says the critic, " instead of being 
 the cause of value, is more properly the reverse ; 
 a cause of non- value :" whence it follows, 
 according to common logic, that as an increase 
 of the cause must be attended with an increase 
 of the effect, you have only to keep adding to 
 the cost of production, in order to reduce a 
 commodity to the extreme of worthlessness. 
 
 Not venturing to repel an attack so skilfully 
 supported, I feel happy in being able to shelter 
 myself under the authority of one, who, it 
 requires no sagacity to conjecture, has hitherto 
 maintained a high place in the reviewer's estima- 
 tion, but who, unluckily for his future standing 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 79 
 
 there, may be shown to have pronounced a 
 prophetic sentence of absurdity on the passage 
 just quoted, long before it had been conceived. 
 It is scarcely necessary to premise, that the 
 author (Mr. Mill) whom I am about to cite is 
 engaged in resolving cost of production into 
 labour. Speaking with this view of a hypo- 
 thetical commodity, made purely by capital, 
 he affirms, " it would be absurd to say that 
 labour has nothing to do in creating the value 
 of such a commodity, since, demonstratively, it 
 is labour which gives to it the whole of its value; 
 and if it could be got without labour it would 
 have no value at #//*." 
 
 Now the Westminster critic will hardly deny, 
 that his little theory on the causation of worth- 
 lessness is here pre-stigmatized as an absurdity, 
 unless that which creates value, which gives to 
 a commodity the whole of its value, and without 
 which it would have no value at all, is not in his 
 opinion entitled to the appellation of a cause of 
 value. But this he will not commit himself by 
 asserting; for as his acquaintance with logi- 
 cians has extended to Aldrich, it has possibly 
 * Mill's Elements, page 98, 2d edition. 
 
80 A LETTER TO 
 
 reached another writer skilled in the art, and 
 he may opportunely chance to recollect the 
 perspicuous definition of the facetious Dean of 
 St. Patrick's, 
 
 " That without which a thing is not 
 Is causa sine qua non." 
 
 Having mentioned Mr. Mill in connection with 
 this part of the subject, I might seize the 
 occasion for replying to the critic's laboured 
 defence of that author, on whose behalf he 
 seems peculiarly sensitive, against a few slight 
 animadversions which I hazarded on a passage 
 of his elementary book on political economy ; 
 but as they are quoted at length in the Review, 
 I leave them without inquietude to appear by 
 the side of the counter-criticism, unencumbered 
 with further comment, especially as I am not 
 sure that I comprehend every part of the reply. 
 It is scarcely worth while deviating into the 
 single observation, that he does not in one 
 instance at least prove an advocate on whom 
 his client will have much reason to congratulate 
 himself; for in repelling an imputation against 
 Mr. Mill, of confounding the standard with the 
 cause of value, he owns, that Mr. Mill, by 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 81 
 
 standard, means regulator of value, that is, uses 
 one expression for the other, and this, which 
 is in fact the substance of the charge, he 
 gravely alleges as a refutation of it. 
 
 The author of the Elements of Political 
 Economy is not likely to be overpowered with 
 gratitude to such a defender, especially as in 
 his third edition he has discarded the expression 
 commented on, and therefore may be presumed 
 to have considered it as justly liable to 
 objection. Should he feel annoyed at the 
 indiscretion of his advocate, he will not be 
 singular. We are all, like himself, occa- 
 sionally embarrassed by the injudicious assist- 
 ance of people whose zeal outruns their judg- 
 ment, and who involve their friends in no very 
 enviable predicaments, not from any propensity 
 to malice or mischief, but from a wrong-headed 
 alacrity of kindness, which no frequency of 
 miscarriage can repress. 
 
 The whole of the reviewer's speculations on 
 the subject of relation form another conspi- 
 cuous proof of his metaphysical acuteness. 
 On this topic he is so profound that I do not 
 profess to be able to fathom his meaning ; 
 so powerful, that I do not pretend to cope 
 
82 A LETTER TO 
 
 with his strength. There is one point, how- 
 ever, on which I must beg to set him right, 
 and it will then perhaps be apparent, not 
 much to the credit of his generalship, that 
 he has assembled his principal forces for an 
 attack where they could be of no service, when 
 prudence required them to be distributed 
 amongst the many posts of his own which he 
 has left defenceless. The point to which I 
 allude is the charge brought against the author 
 of the Dissertation and others, of " resolving the 
 principle of value into a relation, and then 
 imagining they have enlightened the world." 
 
 This is equally candid and sagacious. 
 Whatever may be the propriety of my use of 
 the word relation, as applicable to value, one 
 thing must be obvious to any one who has 
 read the work with attention ; namely, that 
 none of the reasonings at all depend on this 
 word, so that it might be extirpated from the 
 book without impairing its conclusions, which 
 would all follow from the received definition 
 of the term value as the power of purchasing, 
 quite as strictly as from the designation of 
 value as a relation. To call it a relation is to 
 use the common language of metaphysicians 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 83 
 
 and logicians on the subject. The property, 
 which we call value, belongs to that class 
 called relative properties, relative modes, or 
 relations. 
 
 To all the strictures and speculations with 
 which the reviewer has unhappily perplexed 
 himself on the subject of relation, this is a 
 sufficient answer. There are one or two of his 
 assertions, nevertheless, which may afford you 
 amusement if not instruction. He maintains, 
 
 1. That there is nothing relative but terms ; 
 or at least he calls Hobbes's remark to 
 this effect " profound," and therefore it 
 may be presumed that he considers it 
 to be true. 
 
 2. That quantity and substance cannot be 
 relative. 
 
 3. That quart and pint bottles are absolute 
 bottles. 
 
 4. That Dr. Brown made use of the word 
 relative as an occult cause to explain what- 
 ever he did not understand. 
 
 In what sense Hobbes's remark is true I 
 should be sincerely indebted to the reviewer or 
 
 g 2 
 
84 A LETTER TO 
 
 any one else to explain. It seems pretty much 
 on a level, in point of correctness and intelli- 
 gibility, with another remark of the same phi- 
 losopher, that truth consists in words and not 
 in things*, which induced Leibnitz to say 
 that he appeared to him an ultra-nominalist, 
 " plus quam nominalis." If by the proposition, 
 that there is nothing relative but terms, it is 
 meant to assert, that there are no relations ex- 
 isting between things, but only between words, 
 the slightest consideration is sufficient to show 
 its groundlessness. I may quote the words of a 
 writer, who, according to the Westminster critic, 
 " hardly did justice to his own metaphysical 
 powers," and whom I cite on the present oc- 
 casion on that account, rather than from any 
 admiration on my own part of the manner in 
 which he treats the subject. 
 
 " When beings," says he, " are produced, we 
 must not imagine them to exist, like pebbles 
 upon the shore, dispersed and scattered, with- 
 out dependence or mutual sympathy. T would 
 be difficult out of such to compose a universe 
 or perfect whole, because every perfect whole 
 
 * See his Logic, chap. iii. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 85 
 
 has a respect to its parts, as well as the parts a 
 respect both to such whole and to each other. 
 Hence the rise of that genus called relation, a 
 genus which runs thro' all things, holding all 
 of them together, inasmuch as there is no mem- 
 ber of the universe either so great or so minute, 
 that it can be called independent, and detached 
 from the rest*." 
 
 2. The second proposition, "that quantity 
 and substance cannot be relative," seems to be 
 only an assertion in two particular instances of 
 the general proposition quoted from Hobbes, 
 and I should certainly feel under a load of 
 obligation to any one who would explain its 
 meaning. The way in which the reviewer in- 
 troduces this doctrine and the use he makes of 
 it are worth attention. After quoting a pas- 
 sage from Col. Torrens, in which that able 
 writer affirms, that, " in the very term exchange- 
 able value, a relative, and not an absolute, 
 quantity is implied," the critic sagely remarks, 
 " Surely, if any thing in the world be ab- 
 solute, it is quantity. He might as well talk 
 
 * Philosophical Arrangements, page 213. 
 
86 A LETTER TO 
 
 of a relative substance. Can there be within 
 the compass of thought two ideas more dis 
 tinct than that of quantity and that of re- 
 lation?" Such is the doctrine. What it means, 
 or how it is intended to bear on Col. Torrens's 
 remark, I am at a loss to conjecture. The ideas 
 of quantity and relation are certainly quite dis- 
 tinct; but the inference which is suggested, that 
 quantity cannot therefore be relative, is not more 
 correct than it would be to conclude that figure 
 cannot be coloured, because the ideas of figure 
 and colour are essentially different. Every one 
 is thoroughly aware that " quantity" (to borrow 
 the words of Reid) " admits of a much greater 
 variety of relations than any other subject of 
 human reasoning *." 
 
 And now for the critic's application of 
 the doctrine. He employs it to make good a 
 charge of laxity, or rather incongruity of ex- 
 pression against Col. Torrens and the author 
 of the Dissertation, the latter as accessary after 
 the fact. The use of the phrase "relative 
 quantity" not only provokes the laughter of the 
 reviewer, but appears in his eyes to disqualify 
 
 * Essay on Quantity, read before the Royal Society. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 87 
 
 any one for criticising the great economist of the 
 age. " These are the men," he exclaims, " who 
 are finding something to contemn in the lan- 
 guage of Ricardo at every step." It is a pity, 
 that in passing this severe condemnation on 
 others for the employment of the simple ex- 
 pression " relative quantity," his knowledge of 
 Mr. Ricardo's writings should not have been 
 sufficient to tell him that he was condemning 
 Mr. Ricardo himself, in whose pages the same 
 phrase is frequently to be met with. Thus in 
 page 13, third edition, he speaks of "the re- 
 lative quantity of labour as almost exclusively 
 determining the relative value of commodities,'' 
 unconscious of the embryo ridicule which was 
 lurking in the mind of one of his disciples, and 
 which was at a future day to burst forth at such 
 a juxtaposition of terms. In fact, this sentence of 
 Mr. Ricardo's corresponds almost exactly with 
 another proposition from Col. Torrens's Essay 
 on the production of Wealth, over which the 
 reviewer makes a resolute effort to be merry; 
 namely, " Exchangeable value is determined, 
 not by the absolute but by the relative cost of 
 production." " Now, in the name of all that 
 
88 A LETTER TO 
 
 is risible (asks the critic, with unrivalled in- 
 tensity of humour), what is the distinction the 
 author would have us put between absolute and 
 relative in this expression?" He will certainly 
 be at no loss to answer this question himself, 
 when he has fully mastered the meaning of 
 Mr. Ricardo's position, that " the relative 
 values of commodities are governed by the 
 relative quantities of labour bestowed on their 
 production :" in which it will require no great 
 discernment to perceive, that all which he ri- 
 dicules in the position of Col. Torrens is either 
 expressed or implied. 
 
 3. The position which I have cited, re- 
 specting quart and pint bottles, is intended as a 
 humorous illustration of his comment on Co- 
 lonel Torrens. " One bottle," says the critic, 
 " holds a quart, and another a pint. Are the 
 poor bottles on that account no longer abso- 
 lute, but only relative bottles?" 
 
 The defence of these poor vessels, as absolute 
 entities, is full of pathos as well as humour ; and 
 I, for my own part, perfectly coincide with the 
 opinion, that they are to all intents and purposes 
 such as he contends them to be. J should be sorry 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 89 
 
 to think for a moment that the bottles in my cellar 
 had not an absolute existence, especially as some 
 of them contain a liquid on which I have be- 
 stowed a good deal of that truly economical la- 
 bour, which although never exerted except hy- 
 pothetically, succeeds in producing an actual 
 result*. Mr. Harris, nevertheless, with his 
 " metaphysical powers", would have probably 
 discovered, that even amongst bottles the ex- 
 istence of relations is not impossible. 
 
 4. The fourth assertion above quoted, " that 
 Dr. Brown made use of the word relative as an 
 occult cause to explain whatever he did not 
 understand," will not detain us long. What is 
 meant by making use of a word as an occult 
 cause would require an effort to comprehend 
 it, greater than the result could possibly be 
 worth. One thing, however, is clear ; such a 
 sentence could not have been written by any 
 one who had not predetermined that a know- 
 
 * " If the wine which is put in the cellar is increased in 
 value one-tenth by being kept a year, one-tenth more of 
 labour may be correctly considered as having been ex- 
 pended upon it." — Mill. 
 
90 A LETTER TO 
 
 ledge of the book on which he was passing 
 sentence might be dispensed with. 
 
 The four propositions above noticed form 
 altogether a happy exemplification of a remark 
 thrown out by the reviewer, the elegance of 
 which cannot certainly enter into competition 
 with its truth, that "metaphysical terms are 
 edge tools, and should not be meddled with by 
 those who are not used to the handling of them." 
 It is not always that the critic condescends, as 
 he has done in this instance, to furnish us with 
 any proof or elucidation of his own assertions. 
 In the whole of this reputable series of critical 
 animadversions, indeed, he has warily lavished 
 his strength on the expression instead of the 
 proof, reversing Lord Chesterfield's maxim, sua- 
 viter in modo, for titer in re. The major part of 
 them are admirable illustrations of the cheap rate 
 to which the improvements in the machinery of 
 modern reviewing have succeeded in reducing 
 its products. It seems that it is not cottons, 
 or woollens, or stockings alone, which have been 
 lowered in value by modern inventions, but the 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 91 
 
 art of reviewing has proceeded pari passu, and 
 turns out its commodities with such an econo- 
 mization of labour as to bring their real value 
 almost to an evanescent quantity. 
 
 It has been usually thought heretofore, that 
 argument should be met by argument ; that a 
 sophism should be exposed by some proof of 
 its character ; that a simple contradiction of a 
 doctrine was not sufficient to overthrow it ; that 
 a charge of error should be supported by some 
 instance where it was committed. But this 
 is a tedious process : the power-loom of criti- 
 cism produces its results with one hundredth 
 part of the toil. 
 
 Thus if any one shows by detailed proofs, 
 that former writers have overlooked certain 
 distinctions or inferences, the whole answer 
 is, "we affirm, that nobody has overlooked 
 them." If a chapter is written to explain what 
 the author supposes has been heretofore miscon- 
 ceived, the entire refutation is despatched 
 in four words, u this is mere logomachy." 
 In the same ready way Colonel Torrens and the 
 author of the Dissertation are charged " with 
 
92 A LETTER TO 
 
 confusing themselves most grossly by a double 
 meaning of the same term, of which they are al- 
 together ignorant ;" an accusation heavy enough, 
 to be sure, but not on that account the less likely 
 to fall to the ground, being left without a single 
 instance to support it. With equal ease the 
 reviewer taxes the author of the Dissertation 
 with ignorance of the meaning of his own term, 
 in saying that there can be no increase of riches 
 without an increase of value ; but leaves the 
 allegation to maintain itself, neglectful of the 
 consideration, that a charge requires assistance to 
 uphold it in proportion to its native weakness. 
 
 This is indeed " the cheap defence" of doc- 
 trines, " the unbought grace" of controversy. 
 It is so ready a method, that had I not a strong 
 suspicion that what excites a feeling very 
 different from admiration in the reader, cannot 
 be accompanied by very elevated emotions in 
 the writer, I might be tempted to make use of 
 it in the course of my reply. In defending 
 one's-self against the same artifice, there would 
 be some justification for such a step. Asser- 
 tions after the model above exhibited would of 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 93 
 
 course be of trivial value, but it would be 
 enough if they were equivalent to those which 
 they were intended to meet in the market. 
 
 And now, my dear Sir, you will be capable 
 of deciding, whether it is the author or the 
 reviewer that has shown lack of knowledge 
 and abundance of conceit : you will be able to 
 pronounce on whom the charge of ignoratio 
 elenchi is to be fixed ; who has been guilty of 
 the mistake of supposing he understood a 
 difficult subject, when he should have performed 
 a little longer the functions of a learner ; 
 who has been blundering and fighting with 
 shadows ; whose brains have been the territory 
 of confusion ; and who has fallen into the rash 
 errors, although he has perfectly succeeded in 
 escaping all the redeeming qualities of juve- 
 nility. 
 
 What a noble exemplification does the style 
 of criticism which we have been examining 
 afford of the lofty aim of the Westminster 
 Review ! How well it is calculated to con- 
 tribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest 
 number ! How admirably does it stand the test 
 of utility ! Who does not see how much it 
 
94 A LETTER TO 
 
 would diminish the happiness of mankind, if 
 critics did not come to the examination of 
 a work prepossessed against it on account of 
 its size ; if they took the trouble to make them- 
 selves passably well acquainted with its subject ; 
 if they examined its pretensions with candour ; 
 if they suppressed every feeling of irritation ; 
 if they replied to arguments by proofs and not 
 assertions ; if they made no attempt to varnish 
 over inconsistencies ; if they were anxious not 
 to misconceive and scrupulous not to misre- 
 present ! Imagination is at a loss to set bounds 
 to the mischief which might arise to the human 
 race from critical coolness, candour, and equity. 
 In concluding his task, the critic, sensi- 
 tively alive to the interests of science, gives us 
 some insight into the motives which have 
 actuated him in his strictures. The beginning 
 of my letter has done him some injustice on 
 this head. I attributed much of the less credi- 
 table matter of the article to some irritation of 
 feeling. It appears from the close, however, 
 that the whole has originated in a chivalrous 
 design of repressing "much ado about nothing," 
 a spirit, we are told, peculiarly noxious in 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 95 
 
 Political Economy. The self-devotion of such 
 an enterprise cannot be too highly estimated, 
 since the result has proved the magnitude of 
 the risk to reputation, to magnanimity, to com- 
 placency of feeling, and to placidity of temper. 
 He might, nevertheless, have directed his 
 weapons against a more formidable enemy. 
 The spirit from which Political Economy has 
 to fear the most is of a different character. The 
 science has suffered and still suffers infinitely 
 more from that arrogance, which looks upon 
 certain names and doctrines as sacred from 
 attack, that intolerance which would repress 
 every symptom of free examination, that con- 
 fidence which rejects with scorn any suspicion 
 of the possibility of error, that pertinacity 
 which clings to opinions once expressed, 
 because the credit of individuals appears to 
 be involved in maintaining them. 
 
 It is a spirit of this kind which opposes the 
 most formidable obstacle to the progress of 
 Political Economy, as well as discredits it 
 in general estimation. Fortunately, however, 
 even such an obstacle is comparatively power- 
 less, and this, in common w T ith other kinds of 
 
96 A LETTER TO 
 
 knowledge, will advance in its career in spite 
 of the faults and the follies, the " blunders" and 
 the "boasting" of Critical Dissertations or 
 Westminster Reviews. A few years will pro- 
 bably consign them both to that oblivion which 
 generally awaits works employed in clearing 
 away, or in struggling to retain, the mere rub- 
 bish of a science ; or if they should be recol- 
 lected at all, the future economist will probably 
 smile, that questions, then appearing so abun- 
 dantly plain, should have occasioned any loss 
 of temper, or any sacrifice of correctness, can- 
 dour, and good sense to momentary irritation. 
 
 In the mean time I shall have the satisfaction 
 of reflecting, that the work which has provoked 
 the spleen of the reviewer has contributed in 
 some degree, if by nothing else than compelling 
 a closer examination of points before neglected, 
 to relieve the science from that load of per- 
 plexity which lay on its very threshold ; and that 
 the subject of value can never again be placed 
 in that state of obscurity and confusion, which 
 deterred many from intellectual application to 
 a department of knowledge of such vital impor- 
 tance to society. 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 97 
 
 It is but justice to take care before I con- 
 clude not to leave the impression, that the Re- 
 view is a uniform effusion of splenetic feeling. 
 It has laid me under obligations by one of 
 those acts of kindness, which, although unfor- 
 tunate in their issue, demand all the gratitude 
 due to good intentions. As after a day of 
 gloom and tempest the sun sometimes breaks 
 out from the western clouds, and lights up the 
 landscape with one of his most brilliant smiles ; 
 so the Westminster reviewer, at the close of his 
 task, emerges for a moment from the sullenness 
 in which he had enwrapped himself, and emits 
 the radiance of his approbation. Not only does 
 he generously acknowledge some faint symptoms 
 of candour and cultivation of understanding in 
 the work before him, but with the magnani- 
 mous condescension of a mind not prone to 
 undervalue the importance of its own award, 
 he holds out to the author the prospect of a 
 large share of future applause. What a spirit- 
 stirring summons to the field ! What a splendid 
 object of ambition ! 
 
 " Visions of glory ! spare my aching sight." 
 
 H 
 
98 A LETTER TO 
 
 I would put it to the reviewer, however, whe- 
 ther he has not been rather indiscreet in the 
 abruptness of this communication ; whether he 
 should not have opened the prospect with a 
 more delicate regard to the overpowering effect 
 of sudden bursts of brilliant hopes on a mind 
 which he had just led through long and gloomy 
 passages of monotonous criticism, where the 
 darkness of the censure was not relieved by the 
 luminousness of the doctrine ? 
 
 " I could have borne my woes ; that stranger Joy 
 
 Wounds while it smiles. The long-imprisoned wretch, 
 Emerging from the night of his damp cell, 
 Shrinks from the sun's bright beams, and that which flings 
 Gladness o'er, all, to him is agony." 
 
 Grateful as I must feel for kind intentions, 
 however injudiciously manifested, I am only 
 apprehensive that my ambition will not be 
 strong enough for the occasion, and that it will 
 be satisfied with humbler laurels and less in- 
 toxicating applause. It will content itself, I 
 fear, with directing its wishes to competent 
 and well-informed judges, and with looking for 
 nothing but that fair, candid, and dispassionate 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 99 
 
 estimate, both of faults and of merits, which 
 must be the only desire of any writer who has 
 entered on his task with correct and sober 
 views ; and which, although critics cannot 
 withhold it without detriment to their own 
 reputation, he may think himself more than 
 commonly fortunate if he happen to meet with. 
 There is much truth in the following observa- 
 tions of an eminent writer, and I have been 
 frequently reminded of them in the course of 
 the present Letter. 
 
 " What you have acquired by patient 
 thought and cautious discrimination, demands a 
 portion of the same effort in those who are to 
 receive it from you. But applause and pre- 
 ference are things of barter ; and if you trade 
 in them, experience will soon teach you, that 
 there are easier and less unsuitable ways to 
 win golden judgments, than by at once taxing 
 the patience and humiliating the self-opinion 
 of your judges. To obtain your end, your 
 words must be as indefinite as their thoughts : 
 and how vague and general these are, even on 
 objects of sense, the few, who at a mature age 
 have seriously set about the discipline of their 
 
100 A LETTER TO 
 
 faculties, and have honestly taken stock, best 
 know, by recollection of their own state*." 
 
 With this quotation, I must conclude the 
 present Letter. There are other passages in 
 the Review to which I could easily reply, but I 
 have already bestowed as much attention upon 
 it as the occasion requires, and must content 
 myself with having urged all that is material 
 to the defence of the work, which has been so 
 temperately and candidly assailed. 
 
 The importance of these discussions about 
 value I do not, I trust, overrate. It is of a 
 factitious nature, arising, like that of many 
 other controversies, in morals, metaphysics, 
 and politics, from the errors which have been 
 engendered by the efforts of the human mind 
 to grasp the truth. -He, however, must know 
 little of the history of science, who is not 
 aware of the magnitude to which such errors 
 have sometimes expanded themselves, the ob- 
 stacles which they have thus presented to the 
 progress of knowledge, and the extensive good 
 which has been effected by their removal. 
 When this is accomplished, the means will 
 * Aids to Reflection, by S.T. Coleridge, p 186 
 
A POLITICAL ECONOMIST. 101 
 
 often seem disproportioned to the end ; the 
 exposure of a mistake will appear unnecessarily 
 prolix ; and the consideration, that voluminous 
 error sometimes requires still more volumi- 
 nous refutation, will be forgotten by those who 
 bring to the subject understandings familiar 
 with the brief and simple truth, but which, 
 without such a refutation, could never have 
 approached it. 
 
 In the particular case before us, I cannot 
 convey my own sentiments of the controversy 
 better, than by repeating an expression in a 
 preceding page : I consider it as an attempt 
 on the one side to remove, and on the other 
 to retain, a mass of mere scientific rubbish, 
 which has been frequently turned over and 
 thrown into new forms, but seldom without 
 sending dust into the eyes of those who ven- 
 tured on the experiment. 
 I am, 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 # # # # * 
 August 30, 1826. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY CHARLES WOOD, 
 Poppin's Conrt, Fleet Street. 
 

-;: v -* 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■