Now, I have duly attended, according to Mr. Mill’s instructions, to the proposition which is to make all the rest clear; and yet the conclusions at which he wishes to arrive, appear to me as much enveloped in darkness as ever. This, indeed, was to be expected from the proposition itself, which obviously involves a most unwarranted definition of what is meant, when we say that the supply and the demand are accommodated to one another. It has already been stated that what has hitherto been meant, both in conversation and in the writings of the highest authority on political economy, by the supply being accommodated to, or equal to the demand, is, that the supply is just sufficient to accommodate all those who are able and willing to pay the natural and necessary price for it, in which case, of course, it will always sell at what Adam Smith calls its natural price. Now, unless Mr. Mill is ready to maintain that people would still say that the supply of a commodity was accommodated to the demand for it, whether it were selling at three times the cost of its production, or only one-third of that cost, he cannot maintain his definition. He cannot, for instance, deny that hats and shoes may be both selling below the costs of production, although they may exchange for each other in such proportions, that the hats produced by a certain quantity of labour may exchange for the shoes produced by the same quantity of labour. But can it be said on this account, that the supply of hats is suited to the demand for hats, or the supply of shoes suited to the demand for shoes, when they are both so abundant that neither of them will exchange for what will fulfil the conditions of their continued supply? And supposing that, while both are selling below the costs of production, shoes should fall still lower than hats, what would be the consequence? According to Mr. Mill, “shoes would then be in more than due abundance. Why? Because in them the produce of a certain quantity of labour would not exchange for the produce of an equal quantity. But for the very same reason, hats would be in less than due abundance, because the produce of a certain quantity of labour in them would exchange for the produce of more than an equal quantity in shoes.”[19] It will be most readily allowed that, in the case supposed, shoes will be in more than due abundance, though not for the reason given by Mr. Mill. But how can it be stated, with the least semblance of truth, that hats would be in less than due abundance, when, by the very supposition, they are selling at a price which will not re-purchase the quantity of labour employed in producing them.