idea of exchangeable, relative, or comparative value would be no more. But would it not be a grofs abuse of language, to fay, that all value whatever had ceafed, and that in this univerfal abundance nothing valuable remained? Nay, that all commodities existing in an indefinite quantity were equally valuable, becaufe equally abundant? Would not grain, for example, be still more, valuable in itself than fand, diamonds, or gold?-It deferves, in pafling, to be noticed, that certain commodities derive nearly their whole value, in every fenfe of the word, from their extreme fcarcity. This, added to a trifling portion of beauty, which of itfelf would have been unable to confer any value, renders them highly valuable, in confequence of the capricious taste of men, and their defire of overcoming difficulties. Were food multiplied to the full extent of the demand which the whole fpecies has for it, and were every other object of defire at the fame time equally multiplied, diamonds would ceafe to be prized, inafmuch as they derive their value from the difficulty of procuring them; but food would continue to be prized, because it would retain its power of fupporting life.

The confideration of this folitary café, in which the caprices of men have beftowed a fictitious value on the mere quality of rarity, feems to have mifled our author, and to have confirmed him in his omiffion of one entire branch of the subject which he purpofed to defcribe. The difcuffion may to fome appear trivial and verbal; but we fhall foon find that the fame radical omiflion pervades the fubfequent part of his fpeculations, and occafions ftill more obvious mistakes, of exactly the lame defcription, in the doctrine refpecting individual riches.

It follows very clearly from the pofitions regarding exchangeable or relative value, laid down by Lord Lauderdale, and acknowledged by all who have treated on these matters, that it is in vain to feek for any invariable ftandard or measure of value. Our author exemplifies this truth by feveral pertinent remarks, and very fuccefsfully refutes the theory of Dr Smith, that labour affords fuch an unalterable meafure, by thewing, from different paffages in the Wealth of Nations, how much the value of labour varies at different times, in remote places, in different parts of the fame country,-and how much more incurable fuch variations must be in the value of labour, than in the value of other commodities.--This mode of argument, however, we do not think altogether adapted to a general treatise on the prin ciples of the feience. It applies with futficient accuracy to the doctrines of the particular author in question, but might very poffibly fail to convince others, who maintain the fame opinions

Dr Smith, upon more confiftent grounds. In one or two

inftances,

inftances, the refutation, by means of this argumentum ad hominem, wears the appearance of captioufnefs and ill-temper. A patiage is quoted from the Wealth of Nations, to fhow that labour alone, of all commodities, may vary in its value at the fame time, and in the fame place; whereas it is very obvious from the flightest attention to this paffage, that it will not admit of fuch limitation. Diferent prices,' Dr Smith obferves, are often paid at the fame place, and for the fame fort of labour, not only according to the different abilities of the workmen, but according to the eafinefs or hardness of the mafters.' b. I. c. 8.— a propofition, applicable to all other paymafters, as well as to thofe who pay for work; and which only proves, that in every market, the average price, which the competition of buyers and of fellers regulates, must be taken as the exchangeable value of the commodity..

Lord Lauderdale is alfo peculiarly fevere upon the absurdity of a writer who reprefents a great portion of human labour as unproductive, erecting labour into a ftandard of value. This, he obferves, is as ridiculous as if a man were to measure dimenfions by a mathematical point which has no magnitude. Now furely, Dr Smith, whatever qualities or effects he might attribute to the labour which he terms unproductive, never intended to defcribe it as a nonentity; and even if fuch had been his doctrine, it is obvious we could only have inferred, that the productive kind of labour is, in his opinion, the measure of value.

Upon the whole, we are difpofed to think that our author avails himfelf of certain obfcurities, and even inconfiftencies in Dr Smith's language, for the purpofe of faitening upon him a much more contradictory and erroneous theory than he ever maintained. That a perfon of Dr Smith's metaphyfical and mathematical powers* fhould have meant to predicate the abfolute immutability of any standard, we cannot for a moment imagine. He must have known, that fuch a propofition would have been as abfurd as to afcribe abfolute magnitude or entire immutability to the Tower ftandards. We apprehend that he only fought for an approximation, and thought he had found it in that one commodity which, being by much the most frequently exchanged against all other commodities, and of courfe the moft conftantly brought into comparison with every object of barter, might be affumed as the beft attainable measure of their relative value. Lord Lauderdale certainly has not proved the contrary of this propofition to any one who may hold Dr Smith's opinion, without a minute adherence to his manner of enunciating and demonftrating it.

* See Profeffor Stewart's Life of Smith.

We

We now come to our author's peculiar theory of public wealth, as contradiftinguished from private or individual riches. There cannot, he conceives, be a greater mistake than to confound thefe two ideas, and to estimate the riches of a community by calculat ing the aggregate of the private fortunes which belong to all its members. The value of a commodity depending upon its fearcity, the riches of individuals must be in proportion to the fcarcity of the commodities which they poffefs. But the whole wealth of a nation is in proportion to the abundance in which it poffeffes all commodities useful or delightful to man. Therefore, the nation must be enriched by that very plenty which neceffarily diminishes the fortunes of its inhabitants. Thus, a fcarcity of grain renders the whole price of the deficient crop much greater than that of an ordinary crop; and a want of water would give a price to every ftream and fpring in the country. The proprietors of grain and water would thereby be enriched; but the community would evidently be impoverished. This is the whole fubftance of the argument and its illuftration. The inference is a propofition ap. parently paradoxical, but highly efteemed by Lord Lauderdale, both for its ftrict accuracy and its important confequences. He thus ftates his grand difcovery.

From thefe confiderations it seems evident, not only that the fumtotal of individual riches cannot be confidered as an accurate defcription or definition of the wealth of a nation; but that, on the contrary, it may be generally affirmed, that an increafe of riches, when arifing from alterations in the quantity of commodities, is always a proof of an im mediate diminution of wealth; and a diminution of riches, is evidence of an immediate increase of wealth and this propofition will be found invariably true, with the exception of a fingle cafe, which will be afterwards explained. Thus, it becomes neceffary to adopt a definition of Public Wealth, which conveys a different idea of it from that which has been generally received; and it is therefore fubmitted, that Wealth may be accurately defined, -to confist of all that man defires, as useful or de lightful to him.

But if National Wealth is truly and rightly defined, to confift of all that man defires as ufeful and delightful to him; as (from the explanation that has been already given of the nature of value, or of the circumftances that entitle any thing to the character which qualifies it for forming a portion of individual riches) we know, that by adding the circumftance of scarcity to the qualities which make any commodity a component part of public wealth, we should give it value, and thus qualify it to form a portion of individual riches, it follows, that individual riches may be defined,-to confift of all that man defires as ufeful or delightful to him; which exifts in a degree of fcarcity.'

Now, we imagine that a very few fimple confiderations will make the error and confufion of all this reafoning extremely evi dent even to the author himself.

When

When we estimate the wealth of an individual, we generally ftate it in money, the common measure of value: We fuppofe, that his whole effects are to be brought into the market, and fold at the current prices: Thofe prices are, of course, determined by the proportion between the fupply of, and the demand for each commodity Confequently, our estimate of the individual's fortune is affected by the confideration of relative value-by the fcarcity in which the articles he poffeffes are found. That this, however, is by no means the only mode of inftituting the calculation, is abundantly clear from what was faid above refpecting exchangeable and intrinfic value. For, let us fuppofe that the individual poffeffes his property fo parcelled out, as to command, without any exchange, every object of his defire-let us suppose, farther, that every other individual poffeffes the fame abundanceShould we, in this cafe, deny that the individual, of whose fortune we have been speaking, is master of any wealth? Or should we be entitled to fay, that every perfon in the community had become abfolutely poor, when every perfon was placed in extreme abundance? It is clear, that the estimate of wealth is only relative, and depends on a comparifon which proceeds upon the fuppofition of fome perfons wanting what others have to give away. When all are become equally rich, Lord Lauderdale maintains that all wealth, i. e. all individual wealth, has vanithed. This is fuch a confufion of ideas, and fuch a plain abufe of language, as demands our unequivocal reprobation. Now, when we estimate the collective wealth of a nation, it is clear, ex vi termini, that the idea of internal exchange is out of the queftion. In every fuch exchange, one man receives what another gives away; and the aggregate remains unaltered. We fhall afterwards fee how internal commerce promotes the increafe of national wealth; but, in itself, the mere transference of commodities from hand to hand, or from place to place, cannot enter into the estimate of the collective wealth of the country, i. e. the aggregate of its commodities, at any inftant of time. Therefore, it is the abfolute and intrinfic, not the relative value of thofe commodities, which we confider; and internal commerce being out of the question, exchangeable value cannot enter into the calculation.

Let us now take Lord Lauderdale's illuftration, which will ferve equally to expofe his mistake. If the quantity of grain is diminished one half, the price is increased tenfold; and the whole value of the leffer quantity is five times greater than the value of the larger quantity. But what do we mean by the price being increafed tenfold? What, but that the confumers of grain have now to pay ten times more of their fuperfluous commodities for ? They lofe, therefore, exactly what the former gains; and

in return they get from him only half of what they formerly received, for a much fmaller price. It is obvious that this is a diminution of public wealth: But is it not alfo exactly in the fame degree a diminution of individual riches? No one ever maintained, that, in eftimating the riches of a community, we were to confider only the fortunes of a part of its individual members. The propofition against which our author has to contend, is, that the wealth of the community is fynonymous with the wealth of all its members taken together; that is, the wealth of the farmer, whofe fortune is augmented by the fcarcity, together with the wealth of the confumers, whofe fortunes are diminished by the fcarcity.

We cannot really conceive any thing more loofe than Lord Lauderdale's mode of ftating and antwering what he terms the vulgar opinion.' He has not ftated an opinion that any man ever maintained. He has fought with a creature of his own imagination, in order to defend à pofition clearly untenable, and which he never could have thought of holding, had he not involved it in the moft palpable obfcurity-a mift which has prevented him from ever getting a clear view of it. But perhaps he will be fatisfied at once of his overfight, if we remind him, that he has himfelf repeatedly, though inadvertently, ftated with fufficient precifion, the doctrine maintained by his adverfaries.

An increafe of the fortune of any member of the fociety, if not at the expence of any individual 'elonging to the fame community, is uniformly deemed an augmentation of national wealth; and a diminution of any man's property, if not producing an increase of the riches of fome of his fellow-fubjects, has been confidered as of neceffity occafioning a concomitant diminution of national wealth.

And again,

P. 7.

So much, indeed, is public wealth univerfally deemed the fame thing with the mafs of private riches, that there appears no means of increasing the fortune of an individual, when it is not done direly at the expence of another, that is not regarded as productive of national opulence. P. 41.

Now, the condition which is inferted in each of thefe propofitions, forms precifely the foundation of their truth; and it is by omitting the confideration of this condition in all the fubfequent parts of his argument, that our author has fallen into his leading miftake; for his whole reafoning on the tendency of thofe things which increase individual riches, to diminish public wealth, proceeds upon the neglect of the condition ftated in the paffages now quoted. The increafe of individual riches in all his statements, is in fact the gain of one member of the community at another's expence. We are yet to learn how the gain of any individual,

when