not use it except to signify exchangeable worth, or value in exchange; and shall always use the word utility to express the power or capacity of an article to satisfy our wants, or gratify our desires.

Political Economy has sometimes been termed "the science which treats of the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth;" and if by wealth be meant those useful or agreeable articles or products which possess exchangeable value, the definition would seem to be unexceptionable. If, however, the term wealth be understood in either a more enlarged or contracted sense, it will be faulty. Mr. Malthus, for example, has supposed wealth to be identical with "those material objects which are necessary, useful, and agreeable to man."1 But the inaccuracy of this definition is evident, though we should waive the objections which may perhaps be justly taken to the introduction of the qualifying epithet "material." In proof of this, it is sufficient to mention, that atmospheric air, and the heat of the sun, are both material, necessary, and agreeable products; though their independent existence, and their incapacity of appropriation, by depriving them of exchangeable value, place them, as already seen, without the pale of the science.

Dr. Smith nowhere states the precise meaning he attached to the term wealth; but he most commonly describes it to be "the annual produce of land and labour." Mr. Malthus, however, has justly objected

1 "Principles of Political Economy," p. 28.

to this definition, that it refers to the sources of wealth before it is known what wealth is, and that it includes all the useless products of the earth, as well as those appropriated and enjoyed by man.

The definition previously given does not seem to be open to any of these objections. By confining the science to a discussion of the laws regulating the production, accumulation, distribution, and consumption of articles or products possessed of exchangeable value, we give it a distinct and definite object. When thus properly restricted, the researches of the economist occupy a field exclusively his own. He runs no risk of wasting his time in inquiries which belong to other sciences, or in unprofitable investigations respecting the production and consumption of articles which cannot be appropriated, and which exist independently of human industry.

No article can be regarded as forming a portion of the wealth either of individuals or states, unless it be susceptible of appropriation. We shall, therefore, endeavour invariably to employ the term wealth to distinguish such products only as are obtained by the intervention of human labour, and which, consequently, may be appropriated by one individual, and enjoyed exclusively by him. A man is not said to be wealthy because he has an indefinite command over atmospheric air, or over the articles with which he, in common with others, is gratuitously supplied by nature; for, this being a privilege which he enjoys along with every one else, it can form no ground of distinction but he is said to be wealthy, according

to the degree in which he can afford to command those necessaries, conveniencies, and luxuries, that are not the gifts of nature, but the products of human industry.

The object of Political Economy is to point out .the means by which the industry of man may be rendered most productive of those necessaries, comforts, and enjoyments, which constitute wealth; to ascertain the circumstances most favourable for its accumulation; the proportions in which it is divided among the different classes of the community; and the mode in which it may be most advantageously consumed. The intimate connexion of such a science with all the best interests of society is abundantly obvious. There is no other, indeed, which comes so directly home to the every-day occupations and business of mankind. The consumption of wealth is indispensable to existence; but the eternal law of Providence has decreed, that wealth can only be procured by industry; that man must earn his bread in the sweat of his brow. This twofold necessity renders the acquisition of wealth a constant and principal object of the exertions of the vast majority of the human race; has subdued the natural aversion of man from labour; given activity to indolence; and armed the patient hand of industry with zeal to undertake, and perseverance to overcome, the most irksome and disagreeable tasks.

But when wealth is thus necessary, and when the desire to acquire it is sufficient to make us submit to

the greatest privations, the science which teaches the means by which its acquisition may be best promoted, and we may obtain the greatest amount of wealth with the least difficulty, must certainly deserve to be carefully studied and meditated. There is no class of persons to whom it can be considered as either extrinsic or superfluous. There are some, doubtless, to whom it may be of more advantage than to others; but it is of the utmost consequence to every one. The prices of all sorts of commodities; the profits of the farmer, manufacturer, and merchant; the rent of the landlord; the employment and wages of the labourer; the influence of regulations affecting the freedom of industry; the incidence and operation of taxes and loans, all depend on principles which it belongs to this science to ascertain and elucidate.

Neither is wealth necessary only because it affords the means of subsistence: without it we should never be able to cultivate and improve our higher and nobler faculties. Where wealth has not been amassed, individuals, being constantly occupied in providing for their immediate wants, have no time left for the culture of their minds; so that their views, sentiments, and feelings, become alike contracted and illiberal. The possession of a decent competence, or the power to indulge in other pursuits than those which directly tend to satisfy our animal wants and desires, is necessary to soften the selfish passions; to improve the moral and intellectual character; and to ensure any considerable proficiency in liberal studies and pursuits. And hence, the acquisition of

wealth is not desirable merely as the means of procuring immediate and direct gratifications, but is indispensably necessary to the advancement of society in civilization and refinement. Without the tranquillity and leisure afforded by the possession of accumulated wealth, those speculative and elegant studies which expand and enlarge our views, purify our taste, and lift us higher in the scale of being, can never be successfully prosecuted. Barbarism and refinement depend far more on the amount of their wealth than on any other single circumstance in the condition of a people. It is impossible, indeed, to name a nation, distinguished in philosophy or the fine arts, that has not been, at the same time, celebrated for its riches. Pericles and Phidias, Petrarch and Raphael, immortalized the flourishing ages of Grecian and Italian commerce. The influence of wealth is, in this respect, almost omnipotent. It raised Venice from the bosom of the deep; and made the desert and sandy islands on which she is built, and the unhealthy swamps of Holland, the favoured abodes of literature, science, and art. In our own country its effects have been equally striking. The number and eminence of our philosophers, poets, scholars, and artists, have increased proportionally to the increase of the public wealth, or to the means of rewarding and honouring their labours.

The possession of wealth being thus indispensable to individual existence and comfort, and to the advancement of nations in civilization, it may justly excite our astonishment, that so few efforts should