of population, equal quantities of corn maintain very unequal values. The labour necessary to raise that last increased quantity of corn which the rising demand of the market calls for, and the cost of which determines the value of the whole, cannot remain in those different stages the same. As cultivation becomes forced, or extended over inferior soils, the labour and expense of raising this corn must increase. On the other hand, the heightening of the efficiency of labour, which an advanced state of society induces, from improvements in the implements and processes of husbandry and the more extensive use of capital, lessens that labour. Again, the value of corn may be very materially lowered from the cultivation of extensive tracts of fertile land in newly settled countries, whence it may be imported. Once more, the value of agricultural labour itself, in relation to the value of other kinds of labour, or of commodities, is subject to variation, as the supply or demand for this particular kind of labour changes. The value of the use of capital, too, fluctuates from similar causes.

Here then are causes operating on opposite sides; some to enhance, others to lessen the value of corn. They may act sometimes together, sometimes singly; sometimes one may act by itself, and sometimes another. Any one of them by itself, is enough to prevent equal quantities of corn, in different states of society, from representing, or being equivalent to, equal quantities of labour or other things, and much more would be all of them together.

"That corn is a very inaccurate measure of labour, the history of our own country amply demonstrates; when labour, compared with corn, will be found to have experienced very great and striking variations, not only from year to year, but from century to century; and for ten, twenty, and thirty years together."*

Again, the value of corn in different countries is exceedingly dissimilar; depending, amongst other things, very materially on the quality of the least fertile land which is necessary to be under tillage, in order to raise the quantity of produce required for the supply of its market. In America, the quality of this * Mr. Ricardo, p. 506.

land is very superior to what it is in England; and accordingly, the value of corn there is very inferior to what it is here. It is impossible, therefore, that corn can ever approach to an invariable standard of value, either as regards different countries, or different stages of improvement in the same country.

While, then, the labour and expense of working the mines has been subject to alteration, and still more the labour and expense of growing corn, what, as regards value, can be inferred from a comparison of the prices of corn in standard silver in distant periods of time? It is obvious that without further investigation, nothing conclusive can be inferred from such comparison. The twenty-four ways before spoken of, in which a variation in the value of every commodity may happen, apply equally here; and when one or all of them have been subjected to change, perhaps in different degrees and in opposite directions, the expression of value so acquired must be wholly incomprehensible.

Mr. Malthus considers the nearest approach to an accurate measure of the real exchangeable value of things is to be found in a mean between labour and corn, as, for example, a peck of corn and a day's common labour, and that these two taken together would form a standard but little subject to variation; and, as preserving pretty nearly the same real value in exchange, would represent nearly the same quantity of the necessaries and conveniences of life at the most distant periods, and under all the varying circumstances to which the progress of population and cultivation is subject. By this real exchangeable value, he means the power to command the necessaries and conveniences of life, including labour. There seems reason to concur with him in thinking that such a standard would be less subject to variation than perhaps any other, and certainly less so than either corn or labour taken singly. For as the rent of land increases, the relative value of corn must become higher ;

while, as the effectiveness of labour, the main cause of an advance of rents, increases, a given quantity of the products of labour must fall in value; and thus, the changes in the two operating in opposite directions, must in some measure counterPrinciples of Political Economy, ch. 2, sect. 7.

balance each other, and preserve a degree of steadiness not to be found in one alone. But the wages of any one class of labourers are subject to very great variations in relation to the wages of other classes of labourers, arising from the difficulty attending the acquisition of the requisite qualifications for performing the kinds of labour which are of higher value; and hence the wages of one class of labourers are no criterion of the value of other kinds of labour.

Fifthly, if any thing really possessed intrinsic and fixed value, so as to render an assumed quantity of it constantly, under all assignable circumstances, of equal value, and thus to constitute an invariable unit by which to form our scale of estimation, of what use after all, for the chief ends of economical inquiry, would the appreciation by this quality be? It is obvious that, in devising the means by which the objects of our desire may be increased in quantity, improved in quality, better adapted to our wants, and their acquisition facilitated, it is these circumstances alone that require to be looked to. If the causes on which they depend are made to appear, it were superfluous to look to other qualities. Every end of our inquiry being attained, nothing further remains to be sought for. But if it were otherwise, the estimate of exchangeable value, however correctly ascertained, shows nothing of what we require to know. It does not describe the actual quantity and goodness of the products estimated, or the cost at which they have been acquired. It shows nothing of the causes which occasion value, but only that the causes which do occasion value in one object, bear a certain relation to the causes which occasion value in the other object with which it is compared: but as to the nature of these causes, or the mode or extent to which they respectively operate, we are left wholly in the dark. Of what importance, then, can it be to ascertain the exchangeable value of the products of industry, whether it be greater or less?

The appreciation of value has its use in reference to exchange. It is of use, accordingly, as applies to the external commerce of a nation; but as regards the things produced and consumed within itself, the appreciation of this quality in inquiries relating to the augmentation, improvement, and cheapening of these

things, is wholly useless. The value of an object, or the sacrifice which men will make to obtain it, is a quality of the utmost importance to the owner who may be desirous of disposing of it, and of procuring some other object in exchange, the goodness or quantity of which last must entirely depend on the relation of the value of the object to be parted with to the value of that which is to be obtained. The different parts of the whole supply of a community are mostly exchanged by its different members one against another, and the value of these parts in such instances is subject of consideration between these members; but the larger the benefit of the value to the seller, the greater the sacrifice which must be made by the purchaser; if we increase the benefit to the one, we lessen it to the other, without augmenting the whole. As it is amongst individuals, so it is in the intercourse of nations, the value of commodities is the complete and only standard to which reference need be had, in the interchange with foreign productions of that portion of the products of domestic industry which is intended for exportation. But it is of use no further. An individual consuming articles the products of his own personal industry, has no need to inquire into their market value. So it is equally unnecessary in a nation to make an estimate of the value of the products of its industry which are consumed at home; for it can be of no importance whether the amount of other things which men would be able and willing to give for them be great or small, when no exchange takes place, or is contemplated, and no benefit could accrue from such exchange. In the eye of the economist, therefore, looking to the means by which the supply of the whole community may be increased in amount, and its cost of production lessened; looking at the products of industry also, as intended for use or consumption at home, and without regard to any external exchange, value is here of no moment whatever. As concerns the interest of the whole society, whether the value between its different members be high or low can make no difference; since the properties of the objects are not changed thereby. The wealth of a community then, or the amount of the production of its industry, so far as it is intended for use or consumption within itself, and

not for exchange beyond it, does not in any way call for an estimate of value; which could only be useful in the contemplation of its exchange against foreign productions.

The wealth of an individual is properly enough computed from its value. From the amount of this value we estimate the extent of the command which his riches give him over the property and services of others. Here, we look only to the personal situation and interest of the individual in relation to other men, without regard to the public advantage or to the circumstances and interest of others, or considering how much the advantage of the one may be to the prejudice of the rest. But as regards the wealth of a nation it is different. The collected sum of the private riches of all the individuals of a community may give a false idea of the opulence of that community. In an estimate of public wealth, we regard, not the private interest of individuals merely, but the circumstances and interest of the whole, and of every member of the community. But the command which the riches of one member of a society may give him over the services of others, may be to the disadvantage of those others, whose services are thus to an unreasonable extent at his disposal; and if we look for an expression of the public wealth of the society from the collected sum of individual riches, this deduction must be made. If the wealth of a country is to be estimated by its value, the objects which compose this wealth must be estimated higher according as they exist in greater scarcity, or are of more difficulty of acquisition ; since men will in such case be under the necessity of making greater sacrifices to procure them; and every increase of this scarcity and difficulty must augment value, and consequently the sum of public wealth so estimated. A statesman, therefore, who should desire by legislative measures to augment the public wealth, might expect to do so by causing a scarcity of those commodities which are generally useful and necessary to the people. "For example, let us suppose a country possessing abundance of the necessaries and conveniences of life, and universally accommodated with the purest streams of water :what opinion would be entertained of the understanding of a man, who, as the means of increasing the wealth of such a