country, should propose to create a scarcity of water, the abundance of which was deservedly considered as one of the greatest blessings incident to the community? It is certain, however, that such a projector would, by this means, succeed in increasing the mass of individual riches; for to the water, which would still retain the quality of being useful and desirable, he would add the circumstance of existing in scarcity, which of course must confer upon it value; and, when it once obtained value, the same circumstances that fix the value of its produce for a certain number of years, as the price of the possession of land which produces food, would equally fix the value of the produce of springs for a certain number of years, as the price of the possession of that which produced drink; and thus the individual riches of the country would be increased, in a sum equal to the value of the fee-simple of all the wells." Such are the consequences which are deducible from computing public wealth in the same manner as individual riches; that is, from value, and from supposing that the collected sum of individual riches can express the amount of public wealth. An estimate of the products of industry so formed will show one of two things; either that the quantity and quality of these products are augmented, as would naturally be concluded; or, that their scarcity or difficulty of acquisition is greater: but whether it be one or the other, or both of these circumstances, that have changed will be wholly uncertain. If then, from the observation of a higher value, we may be led to mistake a greater scarcity or difficulty of acquisition for an increased production, we cannot wonder at any absurdities into which such an estimate might lead. It would be strange if conclusions drawn from such reasonings could be satisfactory, or consistent with themselves. The object of economical studies, however, is one of a quite different character from heightening the value of the products of industry, or the sacrifice which men are compelled to make to obtain them. Their end is, to lessen this sacrifice; to cheapen products; not to make them dear.

So far is it from fact, that from an increase of individual riches an augmentation of the public wealth can always be • Lord Lauderdale, p. 42.

inferred, that there are cases of constant recurrence in which an increase of the riches of individuals is consequent on a great public calamity, and a diminution of those riches attendant on a public benefit. In the case of grain, it is universally admitted, that a deficient harvest raises its price in a greater degree than the deficiency of the supply; food must be procured, if possible, let the price be what it may, so that the whole scanty produce of a bad harvest sells for more money than the much larger and better produce of an abundant one. In times when the trade in corn was less free than it is at present, the increase of price from a falling-off in the supply was much more striking than now; and no conclusion can be drawn from what it was in those times as to what it may be at present. But were circumstances still more favourable than they are to a steady price of grain, there must always be found, in a perishable and bulky commodity, an enhancement of price greater than the deficiency in the supply. The same has always been found to take place in commodities which are not of so perishable a nature; and, in general, in proportion to their perishableness. A durable commodity may be withdrawn from the market when its supply is in excess, and be retained in hopes of a rise; but a perishable commodity must be sold while it is fit for use, or its value will be lost: speculators may buy up the durable, but they will not the perishable commodity. Now, an abundance of the commodities which form the supply of the community, especially in so important an article as grain, cannot but constitute public opulence; while, on the other hand, a scarcity of them cannot but make the people poor, whatever effect it may have on the private riches of certain individuals. or classes.

If, then, the sum of individual riches does not express the amount of public wealth, it would be worse than idle, for any purposes of accurate reasoning, to institute an inquiry into the value of all the property at any time existing in a country, or even the value of the annual produce of its industry; much more from the changes which take place from time to time in that value, to attempt to draw any inferences to be relied on as to the real condition of the people, or as to the effects on their

pecuniary circumstances of municipal regulations, or other causes of change in the amount of that value. Such an estimate would be not merely indeterminate, but, if relied upon, would infallibly mislead.

If it were admitted that it is desirable to augment the value of the wealth of a community, it may not seem unreasonable to doubt the possibility of effecting this object in any considerable degree; at least so far as regards the continued produce of industry. Without denying that the accumulated produce of industry-the stock of houses, furniture, clothes, tools, machinery, and the like-may admit of an increase of value, through an addition to its quantity and quality, let us observe in what way the continued or annual produce of industry is to be made of greater value. No question can exist as to the practicability of augmenting the quantity and excellence of this continued produce; for, in fact, this is the very object of economical discussions; but the question is, how its value may be augmented. If value be accounted the sacrifice which men are able and willing to give, this sacrifice, as the terms imply, must depend upon what the people have the means of giving. This sacrifice consists either of labour, or property; and if all the property in existence in a country at a given time were valued, the means which the people have of giving is the sum of this property and its labour, or rather the produce which its labour exerted from time to time may create. Now the quantity of land cannot be increased to any considerable extent; but if it could, it may admit of question, whether the whole value of an augmented quantity would be greater than that of the existing quantity; since an addition to the land of a country would have a tendency to lower the value of every single portion of it. With regard to capital, it is perhaps more doubtful whether any considerable accumulation of it would augment its whole value. It is possible that from such an accumulation a glut of it might be produced, whence the command which it would have over land and labour might remain no greater than that of the previous smaller quantity. Independently of the people abstaining from consuming all which their labour produces, and making an accumulation of some part of it, the means of giving more can

only be increased in these three ways, by working more, by producing more with the same exertion of labour, or by an increase of workmen. This last method, though it may augment the amount of things which the whole population have to give, will not, in all probability, increase the sum which each individual can give the population may be larger, but the circumstances of the people not be bettered thereby. But it may be asked, will an increase in the quantity and quality of the things which labour produces raise their value; or will not a greater abundance make them cheaper? For unless the people work harder and live harder, or acquire a greater efficiency of labour, they cannot have the means of giving more.

The misconception which has viewed material wealth as the only proper subject, and its increase as the only object, of economical science; which, again, has confounded wealth with value, and estimated its amount by its value; has greatly retarded the progress of this science. M. Say tells us that "wealth is proportionate to the quantum of real and intrinsic value; great, when the aggregate of component value is great; small, when that aggregate is small."* In another place, he says, "the exchangeable value of things is the foundation of all riches ;" and, "to separate this essential character from the definition of wealth is to plunge the science again into the depths of obscurity-to drive it back."

Mr. Malthus says, " In every case, a continued increase in the value of produce, estimated in labour, seems to be absolutely necessary to a continued and unchecked increase of wealth; because without such an increase of value it is obvious that no fresh labour can be set in motion." But, setting aside for the present the consideration of the reason here assigned, that without such an increase of value no fresh labour can be set in motion, and which, it will be shown hereafter, is not a sufficient reason; it is enough here to remark on the position itself affirmed, that "a continued increase in the value of produce estimated in labour," is necessary to a continued increase of wealth. If this position were admitted, then it would follow, Letters to Malthus, p. 20. Prin. of Polit. Econ. p. 419.

Book I. ch. 1.

that the wealth of a country could not be augmented by any improvement in the effectiveness of labour, notwithstanding that, through such improvement, the quantity and excellence of its supply of necessaries and superfluities, and its adaptation to the wants of the people, should be augmented. All this, it seems, would be of no avail; for the wealth of the country can never be increased, unless the working classes are compelled to give more labour for its produce than before; and thus additional toil in these classes is indispensable to the progress of wealth. If such were really the case, an increase of wealth, which must involve more toil and misery in the labouring classes, were to be deprecated rather than wished for, and the poverty of nations must be accounted a blessing.

Again, Mr. M'Culloch, as was before noticed, characterizes political economy as "the science of values," and its discussions as discussions on value.

But to characterize the discussions of political economy, as "discussions on value," is not presenting their proper character, and is very far from describing their real nature. Of what use could be discussions confined strictly to the quality of value in objects, or the extent of the sacrifice which men are able and willing to make to acquire them, and which extent must be measured by other objects in themselves every moment varying in value? Such discussions could only indicate relationships; relationships existing to-day, but at an end to-morrow; they could show, even while they lasted, nothing but the relationship between the difficulty of acquisition of different commodities; when the only useful object of inquiry-the way in which commodities may be increased in quantity, or the labour and cost of requisition lessened-would be wholly omitted. Vain and useless, however, as such dis. cussions must necessarily be, the adoption of their conclusions could not be merely harmless in practice, it must be mischievous; since an increase of toil, and a sterility of production in the powers of industry, must heighten the value of their products.

It is to the employment of value as the quality by which to measure the products of industry, and to the use of the term