changing in a particular ratio, I have proposed to substitute the unequivocal expression ratio of exchange. But I am inclined to believe that a ratio is not the meaning which most persons attach to the word value. There is a certain sense of esteem, of desirableness, which we may have with regard to a thing apart from any distinct consciousness of the ratio in which it would exchange for other things." It is to be regretted that he did not follow out the clue contained in this thought; he would then have found his way out of the labyrinth.

Professor Jevons calls the expression, ratio of exchange, unequivocal. As applied to value, nothing can be less so. Ratio simply means proportion. Ratio is a mathematical expression, and nothing else. Twice, threequarters, of the size, or number, and so on. But before. a ratio can be stated, the things compared must be brought to a common denominator. Gold and pig-iron are not halves or quarters of each other in exchange.

By value Mr Mill and Professor Jevons mean price. Mr Mill feels the danger of losing his word value by its being merged into price and tries hard to save it. "The early Political Economists," he tells us, "treated price and value as synonymous, but this was a wasteful expenditure of two good scientific words on a single idea.” So he comes to the rescue with a subtle distinction. "By the price of a thing he will understand its value in money; by the value or exchange value of a thing, the command which it gives over purchaseable commodities in general," but this is manifestly a distinction without a difference, a pure tautology. This very command is the one thing which money possesses. Money commands all "purchaseable commodities."

Professor Cairnes walks in the same path as Professor Jevons. He defines value as proportion or ratio in exchange of commodities. By this definition he must mean one of two things. Either value is the quantity of other things which an article can command—that is price or a mathematical relation. It is unnecessary

after what precedes to say more about either of them. Professor Perry of Williams College, Massachusetts,* an economist of great ability, defines value as the relation of mutual purchase established between two services by their exchange. This is ratio of exchange, but then he has his common denominator. All articles are reduced to services. "The value of a thing," he adds, "is its purchasing power expressed in any other purchasing power whatever." This is a repetition of almost the very words of Mr Mill. Value, for the possessor, is the quantity of other services or things which a service or thing can command, which can be got by means of it.

Mr Shadwell,†t a writer of much learning and ability, defines value to be, "the esteem in which commodities are held, as measured by the quantity of labour which will be given in exchange for them." The word esteem gave promise of a new and, as I hold, right conception of value; indeed, the words, "the esteem in which commodities are held," are the true explanation of value. But, like Professor Jevons, Mr Shadwell does not seem to have followed out the thought contained in esteem. Immediately after the definition, he thus proceeds: "To explain why a given commodity has a given value is to answer the question, Why does its

"Elements of Political Economy."

+ A System of Political Economy," by John Lancelot Shadwell.

possession enable its owner to command the labour of others so many days? or which is the same thing, Why is it necessary for the labourer to spend so many days in order to procure the commodity in question? Thus value and wages are the same phenomenon seen from two different points of view, and the answer which naturally suggests itself to both questions is, Because it has required just so many days' labour to produce the commodity." It is evident that the idea of esteem has here disappeared. In its place we have “so many days' labour;" or, we may suppose, such an amount of wages. Thus in reality we are brought to Mr Mill's definition, to market value, to command over a given quantity of commodities in exchange. Only for commodities days' labour is substituted, as being the regulator of the quantity of commodities given in exchange for the thing possessing value. Feeling has no place in this definition of value. The command of a day's work is made to be value.

It is unnecessary to say more to show the want of success which has attended the many attempts to answer that very natural, but very unmanageable question, What is value? The review of the diverse opinions expressed almost seems to justify the remark of one who himself embarked on this sea of troubles in an unpublished and extremely intelligent essay on value, the late Colonel Macdonald. "It cannot be denied that no science was ever buried under such a mass of unintelligible pages and hidden from the light of common sense by words without knowledge than the science of Political Economy; and yet ignorance and error here must be followed by evils more fatal to the comfort and

happiness of the human family than in any other science whatever." His criticism on the recorded definition of value marches on the same line with that here given, the line of esteem. Yet he ultimately landed himself in an identification of value with utility, when he stated "value to be that property which creates in man a desire to possess the article containing it."

Is it presumptuous to believe that this problem is not insoluble-that a satisfactory solution may yet be hoped for? A word so deeply planted in the every day language of men must surely admit of some acceptable explanation; whilst its acknowledged importance warrants every honest effort to reach the end desired. I must venture on such an attempt, and submit it to public consideration and judgment.

Adam Smith's declaration, that there is a value in use and a value in exchange, covers the whole ground. There are things which possess value which are not saleable, for which no one will give anything in exchange; and there are other valuable things which can be exchanged by a sale for money or by barter. Of the first kind are Robinson Crusoe's gun, which, beyond all doubt, he valued greatly, but not for any purpose of exchange. He had no market. The thought of exchanging the gun could not occur to him. Such also is a flower gathered under circumstances of great interest, the toy of a departed child, the extremely valuable horse of a Turcoman, which he is bound never to sell, the aged stump of a decayed oak, and many other similar things. It cannot be denied that the term value is daily applied to them with complete correctness of language. They are valued, often most

highly. No money could procure them since they are never offered for sale. A Turcoman would rather die than commit the sacrilege of selling his horse.

In this class figure the oft-quoted instances of unsaleable water and air. The supposition that a thirsty man sets no value on a glass of water which he took up out of a running stream would be preposterous. It would bring down ridicule on him who maintained it. What matters it that such valuable things cost nothing? Such a thought never presents itself to their valuers. Their want of price only means that no effort or labour is needed for their acquisition; but does it imply that their owners are indifferent to such possessions, because they cannot be sold? that they would experience no sense of loss if deprived of them? that the thirsty man does not appreciate the refreshing draught of the water which has cost nothing? Such things are felt to be valuable, and some meaning of the word value must be found for them. The presumption is irresistible that this value will be the same in kind and essence with the value which belongs to things capable of being exchanged.

Value is pronounced to be a relative expression, and the assertion is true. But what is the relation? between what bodies does it exist? Professor Perry refuses to admit that value exists independently of exchange. "Ten cents. had the power of purchasing my pencil, and my pencil had the power of purchasing ten cents. A similar transaction first introduced the idea (of value) in the West." But this is palpably untrue of the application of the term value to the cases just cited. There is no thought of exchange in them. The relation implied in value when such unexchangeable things are