_X_. You think, for instance, that if the wages of a laborer should in England be at the rate of five shillings a day, and in France of no more than one shilling a day, it could not, therefore, be inferred that wages were at a high real value in England, or a low real value in France. Until we know how much food, &c., could be had for the five shillings in England, and how much in France for the one shilling, all that we could fairly assert would be, that wages were at a high _nominal_ value in England and at a low _nominal_ value in France; but the moment it should be ascertained that the English wages would procure twice as much comfort as the French, or the French twice as much as the English, we might then peremptorily affirm that wages were at a high _real_ value in England on the first supposition, or in France on the second:--this is what you think? _Phil_. It is, and very fairly stated, I think this, in common with Mr. Malthus; and can hold out but little hope that I shall ever cease to think it. _X_. "Why, then, know this, Thou think'st amiss; And, to think right, thou must think o'er again." [Footnote: Suckling's well-known song.] _Phæd_. But is it possible that Mr. Ricardo can require me to abjure an inference so reasonable as this? If so, I must frankly acknowledge that I am out of the saddle already. _X_. Reasonable inference? So far from _that_, there is an end of all logic if such an inference be tolerated. _That_ man may rest assured that his vocation in this world is not logical, who feels disposed (after a few minutes' consideration) to question the following proposition,--namely: That it is very possible for A continually to increase in value--in _real_ value, observe--and yet to command a continually decreasing quantity of B; in short, that A may acquire a thousand times higher value, and yet exchange for ten thousand times less of B. _Phæd_. Why, then, "chaos is come again!" Is this the unparadoxical Ricardo?