Another remarkable case may be Ricardo's Foreign Trade chapter:

Ricardo Principles of Political Economy 1st ed. 1817  3rd ed. 1821

Ch.7 On Foreign Trade

 7.33 To simplify the question, I have been supposing the trade between two countries to be confined to two commodities—to wine and cloth; but it is well known that many and various articles enter into the list of exports and imports. By the abstraction of money from one country, and the accumulation of it in another, all commodities are affected in price, and consequently encouragement is given to the exportation of many more commodities besides money, which will therefore prevent so great an effect from taking place on the value of money in the two countries as might otherwise be expected.

Perhaps many readers wonder why I am asking this peculiar question. This is an important question for the history of economic thought, because this is related to the change / shift from economics of production (plutology)  to economics of exchange (catallactics) , in other words from classical  economics to neoclassical economics.  My question is related to when and who started to move toward pure exchange economy and how it evolved to the economics of Jevons's time. 

The idea to begin with isolated individuals is as old as political economy. With the marginal revolution, this idea has been systematised within methodological individualism. But, in this respect, it is not at all a switch from political economy to economics (which has to do with the theory of value and the disappearance of social classes). Long before methodological individualism affirmed itself as the method of mainstream economics, Marx ridiculed bourgeois and vulgar political economy for their Robinsonades. I would search in Marx’s critique the answer to your question.

Dear Chisato,

Hmm..!  Somebody must have started two country, two product, two  factor case. Is this Heckscher or Ohlin? We may confirm it.

Thank you.

Dear Giulio,

It is a good idea! Thanks a lot.

I have searched  books in early 19th century by Robinson and Friday as key words.

• Thomas Hodgskin (1827) Popular Political Economy: Four Lectures Delivered at the London Mechanics' Institution

contains reference to Robinson Crusoe but as a man isolated from society. (V.9)

Exchange between Robinson and Friday  appears in two books of Bastia:

• Frederic Bastia (1845) Economic Sophisms
• Frederic Bastia (1845) Selected Essays on Political Economy (6. Property and Plunder)

In the latter, Bastia writes in this way:

• Robinson Crusoe hunts, and Friday fishes. It is clear that the quantity of fish exchanged for game will be determined by the labor involved. If Robinson said to Friday: "Nature takes greater pains to make a bird than to make a fish; hence, give me more of your labor than I give you of mine, since I am turning over to you, in compensation, a greater effort on the part of Nature," Friday would not fail to reply: "It is not given to you, any more than to me, to evaluate the efforts of Nature. What must be compared is your labor against mine, and if you want to establish our relations on such a footing that I shall always have to work more than you, I am going to take up hunting, and you may fish, if you like."

Probably Marx might have cited Bastia as a representative of vulgar economists. 

Chisato,

I am interested in the minimum setting or model, not larger one. My interest is the origin of the idea or concept.

By the way, would like see some questions related to HO-models. I am discussing all of these three question pages. My basic stance is that HO models (together with its variants) are untenable. Of course, you are free to discuss from your position.  

What are the pragmatic problems with Heckscher-Ohlin model?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_pragmatic_problems_with_Heckscher-Ohlin_model

Who still supports Hechscher-Ohlin model?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_still_supports_Hechscher-Ohlin_model?_tpcectx=profile_answers

The Heckscher-Ohlin theory is preferred to the Ricardo theory by economists because it makes fewer simplifying assumptions. What is your view?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Heckscher-Ohlin_theory_is_preferred_to_the_Ricardo_theory_by_economists_because_it_makes_fewer_simplifying_assumptions_What_is_your_view

I have uploaded a working paper on the theme how neoclassical economics came to the world. My question (in this question page) is a part  of my research in pursuit of the origin of the neoclassical economics. I traced the current in British economists. 

As for the origin of neoclassical economics, there are many stories from externalist point of view. In other words, many authors explain from soico-economic backgrounds including scientific methodologies and so on. A most simple explanation was the emergence of  marginal  analysis by the popularization of calculus. My idea is the the following: neoclassical economic sis a turn from economics of production (plutology) to that of exchange (catallactics). Why did this strange change occur amid of industrial capitalism?   

There is few internalist explanation of the neoclasscial revolution. My hypothesis is that neoclassical economics emerged in an effort to solve indeterminate terms of trade problems. I believe I have succeeded to explain how this greatest turn of economics occurred from internalist point of view. 

The minimum model of this pure exchange economy is two-person, two-good economy. In spite of young John Mill's intention, he was led to examine a pure exchange economy. I questioned who first used or examined two-person, two-good model.  In our discussion, the oldest case was found in Ricardo's foreign trade chapter. John Stuart Mill wanted to analyse this 2-person, 2-good model by a peculiar circumstances you cannot imagine and were lead to develop a theory of pure exchange economy. This is the famous MIll's thesis: “we must revert to a principle anterior to that of cost of production, and from which this last flows as a consequence,—namely, the principle of demand and supply.” (Mill 1844)  

After, John Stuart Mill, Jevons, Edgeworth and Marshall came. They developed their own version of new economics but  they did not know they are on the paved road that Johhn Stuart MIll opened. 

Now many economists and non-economists are frustrated with the actual state of economics. I believe that it is now necessary to return to classical theory of value. It will open the new strand of economics. Keynes's notion of  "effective demand" can be better reconstructed in this strand. So I believe that this is an interesting paper as history of economic theory but  also a paper that teaches us many hints for the reconstruction of the today's economics.

Mill's Reversion and an Origin of Neoclassical Revolution

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305810200_Mill%27s_Reversion_and_an_Origin_of_Neoclassical_Revolution

Working Paper An Origin of the Neoclassical Revolution: Mill's "Reversion"...

Professor Satoshi Yoshii, a member of the RG, taught me that Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) discussed two person exchange in his 1969 unfinished paper Value and Money (Les Valeurs et Monnaies). In fact, Turgot's argument on the emergence of exchange value is evocative of Marshall's argument on the terms of trade between two countries.

See The Turgot Collection

8. Value and Money pp.163-182. Read pp.173-178 in particular..

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/The%20Turgot%20Collection%20Writings,%20Speeches,%20and%20Letters%20of%20Anne%20Robert%20Jacques%20Turgot,%20Baron%20de%20Laune_2.pdf

In his Introduction to The Turgot Collection, (above cited) Murray Rothbard writes:

• One of the most remarkable contributions by Turgot was an unpublished and unfinished paper, “Value and Money,” written around 1769. Turgot developed an Austrian-type theory first of Crusoe economics, then of an isolated two-person exchange, which he later expanded to four persons, and then to a complete market. By concentrating first on the economics of an isolated Crusoe figure, Turgot was able to work out economic laws that transcend exchange and apply to all individual actions. (p.xiii)

Rothbard judges that Turgot was the first person to argue in Crusoe economics. Is this contention confirmed?