Of the Propriety of certain Terms employed in Political Economy.
My object in these Lectures on Political Economy will be to explain the opinions which have been delivered on some of theleading questions belonging to the subject by successive eminent writers, and to decide among these.I propound no systemof my own.If I can make my hearers know, understand, and estimate some of the most striking and more importantpassages of the best writers on Political Economy; this will be the best instruction which I can give on the subject.And Imay add, that these important passagesstandard and classical passages we may call themare important in literature as wellas in Political Economy; so that a person versed in English literature is expected to know such specimens of our eminentauthors.
Some of these questions are questions of Definitionquestions whether this or that is the proper Definition of certain words.
Other sciences as well as Political Economy have had such controversies in the course of their history; and you may thinkperhaps that such questions are of little consequence, since they are questions of words only.You ask, may we not defineour terms as we please? No for we must define our terms so as to be able to assert True Propositions.The science ofPolitical Economy does not rest upon Definitions.It rests upon facts.But facts are to be described in a general mannerthatis, by means of general terms.And these terms should be well chosen, so as to enable us to assert true Propositions.If ourDefinitions do this, they are not bad, merely because the boundary cases are perplexing.
What is Wealth?
We cannot do better than begin with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.Jt is a book on which all subsequent books onPolitical Economy rest.And it is a book full of actual facts, and not of mere hypothetical cases.
Now speaking of the Wealth of Nations, what do we mean by Wealth? What is the Definition of it ?
We will see what Mr Malthus says (Malthus, Def in Polit.Econ.p.10):
"In adverting to the terms and definitions of Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, I think it will be found that lie has lessfrequently and less strikingly deviated from the rules above laid down, and that he has more constantly and uniformly kept inview the paramount object of explaining in the most intelligible manner the causes of the wealth of nations, according to theordinary acceptation of the expression, than any of the subsequent writers in the Science, who have essentially differed fromhim.His faults in this respect are not so much that he has often fallen into the common error, of using terms iii a differentsense from that in which they are ordinarily applied in society, but that he is sometimes deficient in the precision of hisdefinitions; and does not always, when adopted, adhere to them with sufficient strictness.
"His definition of wealth, for instance, is not sufficiently accurate; nor does he adhere to it with sufficient uniformity: yet itcannot be doubted that he means by the term generally the material products which are necessary, useful, and agreeable toman, and are not furnished by nature in unlimited abundance; and I own I feel quite convinced that it is in this sense in whichit is most generally understood in society, and in which it may be most usefully applied, in explaining the causes of thewealth of nations."On the same subject we have Mr Senior's remarks, which occur in an Appendix to Dr Whately's Logic.
Wealth.Lord Lauderdale has defined wealth to be `all that man desires.' Mr Malthus, ` those material objects which arenecessary, useful, or agreeable.' Adam Smith confines the term to that portion of the results of land and labour which iscapable of being accumulated.The French Economists, to the net produce of land.Mr McCulloch and Mr Storch, to thosematerial products which have exchangeable value : according to Colonel Torrens, it consists of articles which possess utilityand are produced by some portion of voluntary effort.M.Say divides wealth into natural and social, and applies the latter towhatever is susceptible of exchange.It will be observed that the principal difference between those definitions consists in theadmission or rejection of the qualifications `exchangeable' and `material."'
As Mr Senior says, one main point is, whether wealth shall include what is not material.On this point Mr Malthus says ( Def.
p.71)
"Mr McCulloch, in the Article on Political Economy, which he published in the Encyclopaedia Britannica had excludedthese kinds of gratification [immaterial kinds] from his definition of wealth, and had given such reasons for this exclusion, aswould fully have convinced me of its propriety, if I had not been convinced before.He observes that, `if Political Economywere to embrace a discussion of the production and distribution of all that is useful and agreeable, it would include withinitself every other science; and the best Encyclopaedia would really be the best treatise on Political Economy.Good health isuseful and delightful, and therefore, on this hypothesis, the science of wealth ought to comprehend the science of medicine:
civil and religious liberty are highly useful, and therefore the science of wealth must comprehend the science of politics:
good acting is agreeable, and therefore, to be complete, the science of wealth must embrace a discussion of the principles ofthe histrionic art; and so on.Such definitions are obviously worse than useless.They can have no effect but to generateconfused and perplexed notions respecting the objects and limits of the science, and to prevent the student ever acquiring aclear and distinct idea of the inquiries in which he is engaged."The question thus occurs, Do ministers of religion, education, justice; also poets, actors, physicians, add to the wealth of acountry?
