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 propositions
 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 unmeasured
 language, as almost to preclude the
possibility of its being mistaken either by himself
 or his readers for any other.
After telling us, that “ Mr. Ricardo’s doctrine
 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