Value in this sense forms no object of political science, or of political regulation,-government or law..

In its more confined sense, value relates entirely to the intensity of vendible quality in objects which fall short of the desires and necessities of mankind; in other words, to the quantity of one article which can be procured in exchange for another, or for labour, by voluntary consent of the proprietors, by treaty and agreement in the open market, that is, wherever commodities are bought and sold. Value in this sense is the same thing with price, which consists in the relative vendible power of commodities, and is generally proportioned to the quantity of labour and commodities, or capital expended in producing them; that is, to the cost of their production, which constitutes their real price, or, in other words, that price which is the indispensable condition or cause of their existence, and to which (though they may occasionally or temporarily depart from it,) they must always again return, and must continually gravitate towards it as to the "centre of repose and continuance."*

This twofold sense of the term value, here explained, is thus briefly and distinctly stated by Dr Smith:-" The word value," says he, "it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called 'value in use,' the other value in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water; but it will purchase scarce any thing, scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the con

⚫ Words of Dr Smith: Wealth of Nations, book i. chap. 7.

trary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it."*

Thus, then, we perceive, that the words wealth, property, value, have all a more general and a limited signification, the confused and indiscriminate use of which must necessarily occasion endless misunderstandings, contradiction, and error, in the doctrines and reasonings of political economists, until they are properly defined and settled, and restricted to one sense. In the dictionary of our language, the sense of these words must of course continue to be retained and expounded in its full extent; but, as admitted into the vocabulary of Political Economy, they must be rigidly confined to their more limited signification, as defined and explained in the preceding pages. The word value must always be restricted to the meaning of exchangeable value; and the words property and wealth, whilst they are to be uniformly understood as synonymous between themselves, are at the same time equally to be understood as equivalent to the expression or definition given of the latter term-vendible property.+

* Wealth of Nations, book i. chap. 4.

+ This chapter was written immediately after the publication of Mr Malthus's volume (in 1819) on the Principles of Political Economy, and long before Colonel Torrens's publication (in 1821) on the Production of Wealth, in which he defines wealth as follows:"Wealth," he says, "considered as the object of economical science, consists of those material articles which are useful or desirable to man, and which it requires some portion of voluntary exertion to procure or preserve;" (page 1;) which essentially agrees in its main particulars with that which we have here endeavoured to establish. But this very able economist endeavours to lay down a distinction between wealth and exchangeable value, and even maintains that it would be inaccurate to define wealth" to consist in articles possessing exchangeable value," (Essay on the Production of Wealth, chap. i. p. 41.,) which is nearly equivalent to our "vendible property." His

CHAPTER II.

OF THE MATTER AND FORMS OF WEALTH.-NATURE OF

PRODUCTION.

SECTION I. '

THE NATURE OF PRODUCTION EXPLAINED.

EXCEPTING the land and its natural productions, all wealth is the produce of human labour and capital; and stock or

reasons are shortly as follow:-(1.) Because two savages returning from the chase, both being successful, and having acquired food and other things necessary to supply their wants, would possess wealth without the desire to exchange it. (2.) Because a single family shut out from all intercourse with the rest of mankind, cultivating the ground, and preparing its produce for use, would possess wealth which would not be exchanged. (3.) Because, in a country where the divisions of labour were unestablished, and every man combined in his own person a variety of employments, and produced for his family whatever articles they consumed, or in a society where a community of goods were established, "there would be neither buyers nor sellers, neither exchanges nor value in exchange." (Essay on the Production of Wealth, chap. i. p. 14.)

To these arguments I answer, first, that it is perhaps overlooked that things may be vendible which are not actually sold or exchanged. The produce consumed by a farmer in his family and on his farm, the corn he gives to his horses, and the potatoes he uses at his table, are vendible commodities as much as those he carries to market, although they are neither sold nor exchanged; and probably in the case of the two savages above mentioned, if one of them offered the whole or the greater part of the spoils he had brought home for a single arrow, or something of comparatively insignificant value, the other might agree to the exchange with the view of supplying himself, and pampering his appetite with the rarer and preferable pieces of flesh.

But, secondly, if there were a community of goods, and no such thing as barter, sale, or exchanges, or private property; or if wealth

capital which is saved and stored, or accumulated wealth, is simply the effects of antecedent labour, or of antecedent la

existed under any of the circumstances supposed by Colonel Torrens in the above cases,—which are indeed partly unusual, and of little consequence, and partly improbable or imaginary,—I say, in such event, and under such circumstances, there being no coercive laws or regular government, there could hardly be any occasion for a definition of wealth at all, or for the cultivation of the science of Political Economy, the chief use of which is to improve the laws, and to show what is right and what is wrong in every circumstance which influences the distribution of wealth under the system of the division of labour and of private property. All the arts of production might be very well known without reducing them to the shape of science, if indeed they could assume that shape at all, under the supposed circum

stances.

Colonel Torrens adds, that exchangeable value is not an essential quality of wealth, “inhering” in the articles whereof it consists, "but an accident belonging to it only, under those particular circumstances in which the divisions of labour and private property exist." (Essay on the Production of Wealth, chap. i., p. 16.) But it is believed that, without the existence of private property in wealth, it never can be accumulated to any considerable extent or abundance, and that this accident must attend it therefore wherever it can become the object of political science. Although, therefore, under rare and unusual circumstances, wealth should neither be exchanged nor exchangeable, this does not appear a good reason for rejecting a convenient and useful definition, founded on an accident attending the thing defined, in every situation where a definition of it can be required, and one which is equally correct under such circumstances, and perhaps more concise and convenient than any other which could be founded on an essential quality 66 inhering in it."

There is another circumstance or "accident" attending wealth, which has been noticed all along in the chapter just concluded, and on which I may here observe, that still another correct definition might probably be founded, namely, that it requires to be protected and guaranteed to the possessor or proprietor by law and force. I give the following:-Those external material objects, necessary, useful,

bour and capital, fixed and realized in certain material objects or vendible commodities.

Stock or capital has been described and considered as accumulated labour. But this is incorrect; and although the expression is of course to be taken in a metaphorical sense, still it conveys a very false idea, and leads to most erroneous and contradictory conclusions. For, besides that labour cannot be accumulated, it is to be observed, that, except in the very origin of society, capital comes in for a distinct and separate share, both of the effects produced and of the wealth or profits accruing; and in every advanced period it will be found, that the accumulations which exist have all been made with the assistance of previous accumulations or capital. These previous accumulations were not labour, nor even the effects of labour, after the first employment of capital; and to call them so is to sink the

cases.

or agreeable to mankind, of which the possession or enjoyment requires to be guaranteed and secured to the possessor or proprietor by law and force; and this, if I mistake not, denotes those objects, precisely and exclusively, which can be made the ground of an action at law in civil For it may be observed, that when those objects appear, at first sight, the farthest removed from any connexion with the idea of wealth, as in cases of defamation, crim. con., &c., the satisfaction sought must still take the form of wealth, or pecuniary damages, without which the action could not be maintained. As to this particular, however, I offer it with some hesitation and diffidence for the consideration and under correction of the lawyers.

I will take the present opportunity of adding, that there are four other forms of words or expressions hitherto unnoticed, which are nearly synonymous with the definition vendible property; these are (1.) Transferable Property; (2.) Exchangeable Property; (3.) Alienable Property; (4.) Vendible Commodities. These expressions are all evidently much to the same purpose, and may be all used indiscriminately and indifferently when occasion requires; but vendible property I consider upon the whole as generally preferable to any of these, and as more universally and unexceptionably applicable and convenient.