46 
Further Observations regarding Value. 
[Feb. 
This may appear to be refining unnecessarily, and carrying, to a needless 
length, the analysis of the value actually existing in certain descriptions of wealth; 
and perhaps no practical good may result therefrom. But as the various links in 
the chain of agreement under examination, appear to be strictly in connexion; 
and as they go to prove, that, to certain classes, the indefinite description of value 
does exist in some kinds of wealth, while to other classes the appreciable kind 
exists in the same item of wealth; I have thought the matter worthy of obser- 
vation at present, as being calculated to combat the opinion, that no occasion 
exists for distinguishing, m political economy, between the indefinite value, proceed- 
ing from utility alone, and the specific, and appreciable value, which proceeds 
from utility combined with difficulty of attainment. 
I must now return to the inconsistencies with which I conceive that I an. justi- 
fied m charging the leading writers on political economy, regarding the simultaneous 
existence, and non-existence, of value of a positive kind. 
. 'p '' ! " g . tU " ned *° ^ Val,,e >” in Mr. Malthus’s work On Definition 
“ 2 r V ' , ,m WmDB thUS: “ ™ lue has meanings; value 
r: ra , x "r rz y ’ and ™ « * .he 
alone. To this I have the same objection to offer, which holds, as I conceive 
to the monopoly of the term value which Mr. Prinsep has made 
Mr. Malthus defines the other meaning to be value in exchange- “ the rela- 
t.on of one object to some other or others in exchange resulting from ,1 , 
mation in which each is held ” Nm, • , • resultln S fr °m the esti- 
lurking under this definition; aTho " h ' T*’ ^.'T**** 
dent, or positive value, is necessarily implied in that , , ,! lndepfffl - 
treats of that value, in the products, which results “ from .1 v Se " tenCe 
each is held.” This independent vaW • i 11 estlmatlon m which 
because it must be admitted to exist in^arT ’ be , that which “ relative, 
come to be compared* it is in fact tl ' i PI *° uct ’ b( ‘*ore their relations can 
agents, and each" of ^ ZZ* Xl T° «ie moral 
subsisting between the two products theraelves TT* Value is the relation 
paramount importance, to mark the distinction bn™ conceived “ to be of 
very difficult relations; and I have traced Tl 7 hetween * h «* two 
leading errors of Mr. Ricardo's system to the “T” *° me ’ man y of the 
difference. He, it now appears, L “ the " e 8 le « of this very palpable 
'.ant of attention to these differences for h,. °,V „’y ,,er eraba rrassed by the 
ound to be denying, and admitting the exisT r ' MaUlms with one breath, 
on although he has already laid down that tl” 01 POSltlTe va lue ; and further 
and value in exchange, he adds, “ when no n ° thln ^ but value in use, 
of a commodity naturally refers to the is s P«*ified, the value 
m which it is held.” Now the causes which 1, deterraine ‘he estimation 
a commodity is held, are neither its utili v T , “ e “‘ e esti ”ation in which 
this relation, or that, to another commodftv ? “ USe) ’ “ or its standing in 
must be something positively and independent exchan £ e ) 5 these causes 
ion. Mr. Malthus, at page 251, has another * * Jee> f ag the Product in ques- 
rectly admits the existence of value of a positive Pa , SSage ,n P ° iat ' in whicb be db 
ofTT'T “ Cha " RC ‘ 1 with cacb other, without ■ " TW ° articIes ’” b e says, 
This ■ ■ / a '' eference to the wants of mankin 1 1>leV !° US ““mation of the value 
1S * “ fact > ^ying, that tlie relative value's of , ’ the “ eans of Production.” 
S ° f two promts could not be known, 
