AT DIFFERENT PERIODS. 87
one time, compared with the compensation paid
for the producing labour of A at another time.
Hence Mr. Ricardos sentence is a completely
false antithesis.

The author of the Templars’ Dialogues on
Political Economy seems to have followed Mr.
Ricardo in confounding the two distinct propo-
sitions above pointed out. This appears the
more extraordinary, since he has laid down the
first proposition (which I have supposed Mr.
Ricardo did not clearly perceive to be involved
in the terms employed) in such bold and un-
measured language, as almost to preclude the
possibility of its being mistaken either by him-
self or his readers for any other.

After telling us, that “ Mr. Ricardo’s doc-
trine is, that A and B are to each other in value
as the quantity of labour is which produces a
to the quantity which produces B,” he says, “1
assert in the most peremptory manner, that he
who says, ‘the value of A is to the value of ,
as the quantity of labour producing a is to
the quantity of labour producing B,’ does of