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