1831 .] 
Further Obset'vations regarding Value. 
47 
unless men possessed a previous knowledge of the positive value of each ; a proposi- 
tion which is indubitably true, but which cannot be admitted as such, if this be true, 
that there are only two kinds of value ; value in use, and value in exchange. He adds, 
“this general and most important relation to the means of production, and the labour 
which represents these means, seems to be quite forgotten, by those who imagine 
that there is no relation implied, when the value of a commodity is mentioned with- 
out specific reference to some other commodity.” Here, then, we have a direct ad- 
mission of two distinct relations ; the relation of the value already existing in pro- 
ducts, when these come to be compared one with another ; and the relation of 
products to the moral agents through whose instrumentality, either one or both of 
the products, have been brought into existence. This admission suffices for my pre- 
sent purpose ; namely, to show, that some other description of value exists, besides 
* value in use, and value in exchange ; for Mr. Malthus would, I believe, be the very 
first to admit, that two such very different relations as these, ought not to be con- 
founded, by being made to pass under one denomination ; no one being more capable 
of appreciating than he, the extent of error to which we render ourselves liable, when 
we reason so very loosely, as to pass, without being aware of it, from one of these 
relations to the other. Besides then, the general and indefinite kind of value which 
inheres in all bodies which are useful to man, there exists that value which inheres 
positively, and independently, in all descriptions of wealth ; and which is susceptible 
of specific appreciation : and there exists, besides, that value in exchange, which 
marks the relation of existing appreciable values in different products, when these 
products are so circumstanced as to be brought into comparison. The former kind 
of appreciable value, shewing how r great a sacrifice the possession of any product in- 
volves, and consequently how wealthy, or bow poor, its possessor may be ; while 
the latter kind merely shews, that when exchanges are on foot, so much of one kind 
of commodity ought, in equity, to be given for so much of some other. 
Having stated, that the denial, or neglect rather, of the existence of positive value, 
is one of the leading characteristics of the popular works on political economy 
of the day, I must repeat, that I am to be understood as meaning, that this denial 
is necessarily involved in their arguments for the establishment of the theories 
they support ; not that verbal admissions to the contrary do not exist in them 
all. Thus, besides what has been written regarding Mr. Ricardo's work, and 
what has now been said of the writings of Mr. Malthus, I have to bring to 
notice, that Mr. M’Culloch, although supporting Mr. Ricardo’s doctrines through 
thick and thin, has still a great many detached passages which most freely 
admit the inevitable existence of value of a positive and independent character. 
Nay, he has gone into a nice discrimination between real, and exchangeable 
value ; stating, that the former corresponds with the labour which a product costs 
the actual producer ; while the latter agrees with the quantity of labour, or the 
quantity of commodities produced by others, which the product will command, 
I do not very clearly understand the drift of this argument ; and it appears to me, 
that Mr. M’Culloch himself does not much more clearly know what he means there- 
by j for he admits, at page 2‘21 4 , that supposing the market be not affected by mo- 
nopolies, the two kinds of value must be identical. Yet he does conceive them to 
be different ; and his reason for thinking that they must be so, is this ; that if the 
exchangeable value of products were no greater than their real value, or in other 
words, if men only got for their wares what these wares cost them, they could never 
gain by exchanging them for other things. But he knows that men do gain in 
practice by exchanging products, and, therefore, he looks upon this fact, as the cause 
4 Principles of Political Economy, by J. R. M’Culloch, Esq. 
