FullReads

Phed
. This may seem a good quoad hominem argument. Yet surely any man may use the principle of his antagonist, in order to extort a particular result from it?
X
. He may; but in that case will the result be true, or will it not be true?

Phed
. If he denies the principle, he is bound to think the result not true; and he uses it as a reductio ad absurdum.

X
. Right; but now in this case Mr. Malthus presents the result as a truth.

Phil
. Yes, X.; but observe, the result is the direct contradiction of Mr. Ricardo’s result. The quantities of column first vary in value by column the last; but the result, in Mr. Ricardo’s hands, is–that they do not vary in value.

X
. Still, if in Mr. Malthus’ hands the principle is made to yield a truth, then at any rate the principle is itself true; and all that will be proved against Mr. Ricardo is, that he applied a sound principle unskilfully. But Mr. Malthus writes a book to prove that the principle is not sound.

Phed
. Yes, and to substitute another.

X
. True; which other, I go on thirdly to say, is actually employed in this table. On which account it is fair to say that Mr. Malthus is a third time refuted. For, if two inconsistent principles of valuation be employed, then the table will be vicious, because heteronymous.

Phil
. Negatur minor.

X
. I prove the minor (namely, that two inconsistent principles are employed) by column the ninth; and thence, also, I deduct a fourth and a fifth refutation of the table.

Phed
. Euge! Now, this is a pleasant skirmishing.

X
. For, in column the last, I say that the principle of valuation employed is different from that employed in columns five and six. Upon which I offer you this dilemma: it is–or it is not; choose.

Phil
. Suppose I say, it is?

X
. In that case, the result of this table is a case of idem per idem; a pure childish tautology.

Phil
. Suppose I say, it is not?

X
. In that case, the result of this table is false.

Phil
. Demonstrate.

X
. I say, that the principle of valuation employed in column nine is, not the quantity of producing labor, but the quantity of labor commanded. Now, if it is, then the result is childish tautology, as being identical with the premises. For it is already introduced into the premises as one of the conditions of the case Alpha (namely, into column two), that twelve quarters of corn shall command the labor of one man; which being premised, it is a mere variety of expression for the very same fact to tell us, in column nine, that the one hundred and fifty quarters of column the first shall command twelve men and five tenths of a man; for one hundred and forty-four, being twelve times twelve, will of course command twelve men, and the remainder of six quarters will of course command the half of a man. And it is most idle to employ the elaborate machinery of nine columns to deduce, as a learned result, what you have already put into the premises, and postulated amongst the conditions.

Phed
. This will, therefore, destroy Mr. Malthus’ theory a fourth time.

X
. Then, on the other hand, if the principle of valuation employed in column nine is the same as that employed in columns five and six, this principle must be the quantity of producing labor, and not the quantity of labor commanded. But, in that case, the result will be false. For column nine values column the first. Now, if the one hundred and fifty quarters of case Alpha are truly valued in column first, then they are falsely valued in column the last; and, if truly valued in column the last, then falsely valued in column the first. For, by column the last, the one hundred and fifty quarters are produced by the labor of twelve and a half men; but it is the very condition of column the first, that the one hundred and fifty quarters are produced by ten men.