I am most ready to acknowledge that they are amply sufficient for the purpose, if they are true. But is it possible that doctrines can be true, which, having no other foundation than a most arbitrary and unwarranted interpretation of a definition of Adam Smith, lead directly to the subjoined conclusions? First; That the value of labour rises or falls as a given portion of it will exchange for a greater or less quantity of silk or any other commodity, however unconnected with the labourer’s wants; so that if silks were to fall to one-half their price, the value of labour would be doubled. Secondly; That the value of corn in one year cannot be compared with the value of corn in another, because value denotes only a relation between two things at the same time. And thirdly, That the comparative steadiness in the value of the precious metals, for short periods, is of no service to them in the capacity of a measure of value. The decision of the question, as to the truth of doctrines necessarily leading to such conclusions, may be safely left to the reader. But to return to the main subject of the chapter, namely, the measure of value proposed by me. In a publication entitled “_The Measure of Value stated and illustrated_,” I had given reasons, which appeared to me convincing, for adopting labour, in the sense in which it is generally understood and applied by Adam Smith, as the measure of value; and further to illustrate the subject, and bring into one view the results of different suppositions respecting the varying fertility of the soil and the varying quantity of corn paid to the labourer, I added a table in which different suppositions of this kind are made. In reference to this table the author observes, that “In the same way any article might be proved to be of invariable value, for instance, ten yards of cloth. For whether we gave 5_l._ or 10_l._ for the ten yards, the sum given would always be equal in value to the cloth for which it was paid, or, in other words, of invariable value in relation to cloth. But that which is given for a thing of invariable value must itself be invariable, whence the ten yards of cloth must be of invariable value.”[79] This comparison shows either a most singular want of discrimination, or a purposed disregard of the premises on which the table is founded. These premises are, that the natural and necessary conditions of the supply of the great mass of commodities, or, in other words, their elementary costs of production, are, the accumulated and immediate labour necessary to produce them, with the addition of the ordinary profits upon the whole advances for the time they have been advanced; and that the ordinary values of commodities at different periods, according to the most customary application of the term, are determined by the elementary costs of production at those periods, that is, by the labour and profits worked up in them.