without having the slightest knowledge of the science of Geology, and never having been in any of these countries-or if he should write a large work on surgery out of his own imagination, without having the least knowledge of surgery-or upon medicine without the least knowledge of the medicinal effect of drugs-or on the phenomena of force-or light-or heat—or electricity, or any other subject requiring an exhaustive knowledge and study of facts-in what terms should we characterise such works?-in terms, I fear, which would be scarcely parliamentary.

Now the first necessity of an Economist is to have a thorough knowledge of the most abstruse and subtle department of mercantile law, then to have a thorough knowledge of practical business, and then to have an adequate knowledge of physical science, and of the methods by which the various physical sciences have been constructed, so as to bring the phenomena of commerce under the dominion of the laws of physical science.

Now Mill knew absolutely nothing of mercantile law-he never had the least knowledge of practical business—and as the late Professor Adams said to me one day at Cambridge, he knew nothing of physical science; and yet he writes a large work on a subject in which these various departments of knowledge are requisite. Every page of his work is full of the most glaring ignorance and blunders; and there is scarcely a single point in which he does not contradict himself. Now, in sober seriousness, we must ask how is this more consistent with scientific morality than cheating at cards, or forgery, or issuing base coin.

We have already given specimens of his self-contradictions on the nature of the science itself, and of the method of investigation proper to it. We shall now investigate his doctrines on Wealth and Value, which are the two fundamental concepts of the science.

Mill divides his work into (1) Production; (2) Distribution, and (3) Exchange. Now Production and Distribution, in the language of the Economists, meant Exchange; therefore Mill's work is simply on Exchange and Exchange. He rightly considers that Consumption, in Say's sense of destruction, forms no part of Economics.

The first grave and fundamental defect of Mill's work is, that he rushes into Production without first clearly and finally determining the meaning of Wealth, which is the basis of the whole science.

He begins by saying truly enough (Preliminary Remarks) that the subject of Economics is Wealth. But then he says—" Everyone has a notion, sufficiently correct for common purposes, of what is meant by Wealth. . . . It is no part of the design of this treatise

to aim at metaphysical nicety of definition, where the ideas suggested by a term are already as determinate as practical purposes require."

Such doctrines as these strike us with amazement in a professed writer on Logic. Are not the whole physical sciences based on the strictest nicety in the definition of fundamental concepts? Have there not been the fiercest controversies to determine their meaning? And it is only by means of these controversies that they have been raised to their present position.

Mill himself says "Since reasoning or inference, the principal subject of Logic, is an operation which usually takes place by means of words, and in complicated cases can take place in no other way those who have not a thorough insight into the signification and purposes of words will be under chances amounting almost to a certainty of reasoning or inferring incorrectly. And logicians have generally felt that unless in the very first stage they removed this fertile source of error, unless they taught their pupil to put away the glasses which distort the object, and to use those which are adapted to his purpose in such a manner as to assist, not perplex his vision, he would not be in a condition to practise the remaining part of their discipline with any prospect of advantage. Therefore it is that an inquiry into language, so far as it is needful to guard against the errors to which it gives rise, has at all times been deemed a necessary preliminary to the study of logic.

"But there is another reason of a still more fundamental nature why the import of words should be the earliest subject of a logician's consideration, because without it he cannot examine into the import of propositions."

So again-"But to penetrate to the more hidden agreement on which these obvious and superficial agreements depend is often one of the most difficult of scientific problems. As it is among the most difficult, so it seldom fails to be among the most important. And since upon the result of this inquiry respecting the causes of the properties of a class of things, there incidentally depends the question-What shall be the meaning of a word? Some of the most profound and most valuable investigations which philosophy presents to us have been introduced by, and have offered themselves under the guise of, inquiries into the definition of a name."

Out of numerous other passages to the same purpose, we may cite one more "And the student of logic, in the discussion even of such truths as we have cited above, acquires habits of circumspect interpretations of words, and of exactly measuring the length

and breadth of his assertions, which are among the most indispensable conditions of any considerable mental attainment, and which it is one of the primary objects of logical discipline to. cultivate."

Mill on Wealth.

We shall now see whether Mill has observed his admirable precepts with regard to the formation of Definitions, any better than he has his admirable precepts about the construction of Economics as a science, and whether he himself has any definite notion of the meaning of Wealth.

In his Preliminary Remarks, he says—“ Everything forms, therefore, a part of Wealth which has a power of purchasing." Now here we have a perfectly clear and definite concept of Wealth, exactly agreeing with that of Aristotle and all ancient writers. In this passage Mill makes Exchangeability, and that only, the essence and principle of Wealth-that is, everything which can be bought and sold, or exchanged, no matter what its form or its nature may be. This definition manifestly includes all the three orders of Exchangeable Quantities-material products, personal qualities, and abstract rights. And if Wealth be anything which has purchasing power, the Production of Wealth must be the production of anything which can be bought and sold. Now having got this definition, which is perfectly correct, we might have expected that all controversies were at an end; and as the essence of Wealth is Exchangeability, the Science of Wealth can be nothing else than the Science of Exchanges, or the Theory of Value.

But at the end of the Preliminary Remarks he says—“The production of Wealth: the extraction of the instruments of human subsistence and enjoyment from the materials of the globe, &c." In this passage Mill has completely changed his fundamental concept of Wealth. Here he makes Wealth to be merely the instruments of human subsistence and enjoyment, and all to be extracted from the materials of the globe, and the quality of Exchangeability has totally disappeared. These two passages are in complete contradiction to each other, and we are once more plunged into Physiocracy, from which we had hoped to be delivered. Now Mill admits that Personal Qualities are Wealth, both in the form of Labour and Personal Credit-and how are these extracted from the materials of the globe?

Mill admits abstract Rights, such as Credits or Debts, to be Wealth—and how are abstract Rights extracted from the materials of the globe?

In Book I., chap. iii., on Unproductive Labour, we are plunged into more confusion. He is recalled to the meaning of Wealth. He says-"Productive Labour means Labour productive of Wealth. We are recalled, therefore, to the question touched upon in our first chapter, what Wealth is, and whether only material products, or all useful products, are to be included in it."

He says that utilities produced by labour are of three kinds— (1) utilities embodied in outward objects; (2) utilities embodied in human beings; (3) utilities not embodied in any object, but consisting in a mere service rendered, a pleasure given, an inconvenience or a pain averted-i.e., all labour and services.

He then says that utilities of the third class, which consist only in services which only exist while being performed, cannot be spoken of as Wealth except by an acknowledged metaphor.

But here Mill is in contradiction with all ancient writers, and, as is invariably the case, with himself. Aristotle says that Wealth is anything whose value can be measured in money; Ulpian says that Wealth is anything which can be bought and sold; and Mill says that Wealth is anything which has purchasing power.

Now labour and services, knowledge, have a value which can be measured in money-they can be bought and sold, they have purchasing power, and therefore they are Wealth.

But Mill says "It is essential to the idea of Wealth to be susceptible of accumulation." Now here is a perfectly new idea introduced into the concept of Wealth. He says "I should prefer, were I constructing a new technical language, to make the distinction turn upon the Permanence rather than upon the Materiality of the product."

Now this doctrine is a violation of one of the fundamental principles of Natural Philosophy-the Law of Continuity. Things whose value can be measured in money, which can be bought and sold, or have purchasing power, are of all degrees of permanence; from the land and many other things, such as diamonds, emeralds, and other precious stones, &c., which may last for ever, to things which have a constantly diminishing degree of permanence-such as houses, watches, clothes, food, &c., down to labour, which perishes in the using, and has the least degree of permanence. Now at what degree of permanence, and at what number of exchanges, are we to draw the line between Wealth and Not-Wealth? Mill gives us not the least clue. Now the Law of Continuity says, "That which is true up to the Limit is true at the Limit." Now the lowest Limit of Exchange is one, and the lowest degree of

Permanence is that which perishes in the act of exchange. These are what Bacon calls instances of Ultimity or Limit. Labour is only capable of one exchange, and it only exists during the act of performance. But it possesses the quality of Exchangeability, or the capability of being bought and sold; and therefore by the fundamental law of Natural Philosophy it is necessarily included under the title of Wealth. The question involved is no slight one, nor a piece of mere logomachy; it is simply whether Labour is to be considered as an Economic Quantity, and subject to the general Law of Value.

On the same page he says, "I shall, therefore, in this treatise when speaking of Wealth, understand by it only what is called material Wealth." But within an inch of this sentence he says, “The skill and energy and perseverance of the artisans of a country are reckoned part of its Wealth, no less than their tools and machinery." And why are not also the skill, energy, and perseverance of the lawyers, doctors, engineers, and all other professional men equally part of the Wealth of the country? Also he says, "Acquired capacities which exist only as a means, and have been called into existence by labour, fall rightly, as it seems to me, within that designation. Now are skill and energy, perseverance and acquired capacities, material wealth, and extracted from the materials of the globe?

Again Mill fully admits that Personal Credit and Rights of Action are Wealth, as shewn under Credit. Now is Personal Credit, and are Rights of Action, material wealth, and extracted from the materials of the globe?

In his first book Mill maintains that Land, Labour, and Capital are required for the production of Wealth. But is everything which has purchasing power the product of land, labour, and capital? Are personal qualities, is knowledge and science, the product of land, labour, and capital? Are Rights of Action, which Mill acknowledges to be Wealth, the products of land, labour, and capital? Mill's master, Say, says that if a Bank can maintain in circulation an amount in Credit greater than the cash it holds in reserve, that augments the capital of the country. It is therefore the production of wealth; and is it the product of land, labour, and capital?

When, therefore, Mill says that every one has a sufficiently correct idea of what Wealth is, it appears that he has no correct ideas himself on the subject, and his notions are a chaos of confusion

and contradictions.