} 
i 
j 
| 
Aa alla 
WELLINGTON PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. 
First Mzerine. 18th July, 1878. 
A. K. Newman, M.B., Vice-president, in the chair. 
New Members.—D. Climie, C. E. Macklin, T. _W. Kirk, T. King, E. P. 
Field, Herbert Rawson. 
Attention was called to several additions to the Museum and library, which were 
placed on the table for the inspection of members. 
1. “ On some of the Terms used in Political Economy," by John Car- 
ruthers, M. Inst. C.E. (Transactions, p. 3.) 
Mr. Maxwell said that as regards Mill's definition of wealth, that “it is anything 
useful or agreeable which possesses exchangeable value," he concurred with Mr. Car- 
ruthers that the word ‘ exchange " should be omitted, because if we regard the community 
in the world as a whole, sinee there is no one without the world with whom this com- 
munity can exchange its possessions, it would follow from Mill’s definition that iba 
community as a whole possesses no wealth, and this is manifestly absurd. Regarding 
the divisions proposed by Mr. Carruthers of wealth into direct wealth and im iain 
he did not think a distinct line of demarcation can be drawn. It is impossible to define 
the point at which bread, for instance, may be described as useful for its own sake, 
although bread is stated to be an article which is direct wealth; the whole of the com- 
binations of circumstances and things which go to produce bread, from the plough to the 
process of digestion, are so involved that it seems almost impossible to state at what 
particular period the bread is useful or not useful for its own sake. A chair may be direct 
wealth while occupied for rest, ages if its use be made subservient to the purpose of 
listening it becomes an implemen 
Mr. Martin Chapman ea that the controversy was principally owing to the 
ambiguity of our common language. Few people know how ambiguous our ordinary 
language is. Lawyers know it, and are always trying to guard against it, with very 
indifferent success. That this does not cause trouble is pare owing to the fact that 
we usually converse with persons whose minds have been train a manner somewhat 
similar to our own. When this is not the case trouble ensues, as, aa instance, when a 
soldier and a sailor converse they soon think each other fools, because one talks pipeclay, 
the other pitch. The present difference may be due to a similar reason, viz., that the 
critic and the criticized do not look at the matter from the same standpoint. This 
oo appeared in the paper; it did not appear at ali clearly what Mr. Carruthers 
ant by a “man;” was it the individual, the family, community y, or all mankind, 
Mau to each of these a different test would have to be applied? The stone which a 
lunatic thinks will transmute gold cannot be called sig eed ss ihe posson giver him 
comfort, So the torpedoes used by 
the happiness of one nation, Pu pichably nd of the whole world; yet they would be 
