Labour, and Credit. Hence we are now sure of our ground, and may begin to generalize with safety, because we have got all the species of Economic Quantities. And all the Fundamental Conceptions of Economics must be generalized so as to grasp all these three species of Economic Quantities.

14. These three species of Economic Quantities may be exchanged in Six different ways:

1. A material product for a material product, as gold money for so much corn, manufactures, &c.

2. A material product for an immaterial product; as gold money for so much labour, or instruction, of any sort.

3. A material product for incorporeal property, such as gold money for debt, or so much stock, or the Funds, or a copyright, &c.

4. An immaterial product for an immaterial product, as so much instruction, or labour, of one sort may be exchanged for so much instruction or labour of another sort.

5. An immaterial product for incorporeal property, as so much instruction or labour for a Bank Note, Cheque, &c.

6. Incorporeal Property for incorporeal property; as we may buy or sell a copyright, or patent, for bank notes, cheque, &c.; or one kind of debt may be exchanged for another kind; as when a banker buys or discounts, as it is technically termed a debt, payable at a future date, by means of creating a debt payable on demand, which forms the great business of banking, the greatest branch of modern commerce.

The business of the Physical Economist is to discover and express a great single General Law, which governs all these distinct species of Exchanges.

We have now laid a solid foundation for a general science of Economics, and there is no fear that our doctrines can be overthrown by the introduction of new quantities, as is so frequently the case in other sciences, because it is perfectly well known that there are three, and only three, species of Economic Quantities, and that there are six, and only six species of Exchange.

The principal source of error and confusion in Economic Science has arisen from the fact that the nomenclature which is still very commonly used was originated by writers who only considered one class of cases, namely, the exchange of material

products against material products; and they lay down definitions and laws which are only even apparently applicable to that single class of cases, and not even in reality true in that single class, and which the least experience and reflection shew are wholly erroneous when applied to other cases, and are, therefore, not general, and have no possible application to the last and most important species of exchanges, namely, that of debts for debts.

*

We now at last see what is the true Economic meaning of the word WEALTH. It is an EXCHANGEABLE RIGHT. The Physiocrates said that all products are ultimately exchanged against products. This doctrine was adopted by J. B. Say, but it was seen to be incorrect. Bastiat says '"Labour is the only subject of exchange. * Into what we denominate products there enter different degrees of natural utility and different degrees of artificial utility; the latter, which alone implies labour, is alone the subject of human exchanges; and without contesting in any way the celebrated and suggestive formula of J. B. Say, I esteem it more rigorously scientific to say that Labour is exchanged against Labour, or, better still, Services are exchanged against Services." Now we shall have to show hereafter that it is a great error to say that labour is the only subject of exchange. We have shewn that Wealth is an Exchangeable Right, and, therefore, all Exchanges are of RIGHTS against RIGHTS.

Examination of the Arguments against admitting Immaterial and Incorporeal Quantities into Economics.

15. The considerations given in the preceding sections are, we think, quite sufficient to prove that Immaterial and Incorporeal Quantities should be admitted into Economics. We have seen that the Physiocrates did not include them, but we have given what appears to us a sufficient answer to the arguments of Le Trosne, the only one who gave any reason why they should not be considered as Wealth. Most other writers have simply included or excluded them, as the case may be, without giving any arguments on either side. Malthus, however, has strenu ously argued against their admittance, and, as his arguments 1 Harmonies Economiques. De la Population.

M

have been adopted by some other writers, we must examine them, as this work would be incomplete unless we can not only show that they ought to be included, but also that the arguments against excluding them are erroneous.

It would occupy too much space to quote the whole of the passage in Malthus; we will therefore state his argument, and quote sufficient to give a complete view of his opinion. He begins by truly observing on the importance of the definition of Wealth; and says it is sometimes supposed that a writer may define his terms in any manner he pleases, provided that he uses them strictly in the sense proposed. He very justly says that this doctrine cannot be accepted, because if he gives a definition of the subject, which is unusual or inadequate, he may render his inquiries perfectly futile; as, for instance, if any one were to define wealth arbitrarily, as consisting exclusively of broad-cloth, however consistent he might be in the use of the term, or however useful it might be as a treatise on that one article, it would be of no use to those who looked for a treatise on wealth, according to any common or useful meaning of the term.

He says that the comparative merits of the system of the Economists and of Adam Smith, depend upon their different definitions of Wealth, and Productive Labour. If the definition of these terms by the Economists is the more useful and correct, then their system is the correct one. If Smith's definitions of these terms is the better and more comprehensive, then his system is superior in utility and correctness.

Malthus then says that, of those who have given a definition of Wealth, some have made it too narrow, and some far too wide. The Economists made it too narrow by confining it to the neat produce of the earth. Lord Lauderdale, he says, made it far too wide by saying wealth is "all that man desires as useful and delightful to him."

"This definition obviously includes everything whether material or intellectual, whether tangible or otherwise, which contributes to the advantage or pleasure of mankind, and of course includes the benefits and qualifications derived from religion, from morals, from political and civil liberty, from oratory, from instructive and agreeable conversation, from music, dancing, 1 Principles of Political Economy, Ch. I.

acting, and all personal qualities and services. It is certain, however, that an inquiry into the nature and causes of all these kinds of wealth, would not only extend beyond the bounds of any single science, but would occasion so great a change in the use of common terms as to introduce the utmost confusion into the language of political economists. It would be impossible to form any judgment of the state of a country from the use of the terms rich or richer. A nation might be said to be increasing in wealth, when to all common eyes, and in all common language, it might be growing poorer. This would be the case, according to the definition, if a diminution of the manufacturing and mercantile products had been balanced in the opinions of some persons by the qualifications derived from the intellectual attainments, and the various personal qualities and services of the inhabitants. But how is this balance to be ascertained? How is it possible to estimate the degree of wealth derived from these sources? Yet it is quite obvious that we cannot practically apply any discussions respecting the relative increase in the wealth of different nations, without having some means however rough of estimating the amount of such increase.

"Some modern writers who do not choose to adopt the language of Adam Smith, and yet see the confusion which would arise from including under the head of wealth every kind of benefit or gratification of which man is susceptible, have confined the definition to these objects alone, whether material or immaterial, which have value in exchange.

"This definition is certainly preferable to the more comprehensive one just noticed, but by no means to the extent which might at first be supposed. When it is considered attentively, it will be found to be open to a very great portion of the objections to which the more general one is liable, and to draw the line of demarcation between what ought and what ought not to be considered as wealth in the most indistinct and unsatisfactory manner.

"Passing over the incorrectness of introducing a term open to so much controversy as value into a definition of wealth, it may be observed—

"1st. That if by an object which has value in exchange be understood its susceptibility of being purchased or hired, then there is scarcely any quality or accomplishment of the mind or

body that would not come under the category of wealth. The possessor of the lowest species of literary knowledge, that of reading and writing may be hired to teach others; and, as all or nearly all who had acquired these useful arts are susceptible of such employment, an estimate of national wealth ought to include the value of these attainments, however various in degree and widely extended.

"2nd. All the knowledge acquired by a superior education and superior talents, on account of a similar susceptibility, would have a greater claim to be included in the estimate. The possessors of religious and moral knowledge, though obtained without any view to the instruction of others for a pecuniary remuneration, would be ready to sell such instruction under a reverse of fortune. The same may be said of a knowledge of classical literature, mathematics, history, natural philosophy, chemistry, geology, mineralogy, botany, &c., &c. On the same principle those who had learnt to dance, to sing, or to fence for their amusement might more or less imperfectly teach dancing, singing, or fencing for money.

"In short, if we include under the denomination of wealth all the qualities of the mind and body which are susceptible of being hired, we shall find that, by the restriction of the term wealth to that which has exchangeable value, we have advanced but little towards removing the confusion and uncertainty attendant upon the former definition; and all idea of estimating the increase of wealth in any country, or making any moderate approaches to it must be absolutely hopeless.

"On the other hand, if we confine the definition of wealth to those objects which either have been exchanged, or are specifically intended to be exchanged, we shall attempt to draw a broad line of demarcation between things in regard to their qualities are precisely similar; and further exclude from the category of wealth a great mass of articles, which have been included, and most correctly so, by Adam Smith and by almost every person who makes use of the term, either in writing or conversation.

"The various information acquired by private study, and destined for private use and enjoyment, may be of exactly the same kind as that which is intended to be let out if anybody will hire it, yet the first, in this classification, is not to be