250 
On Political Economy . 
[Aug. 
their values. It is extraordinary, that the double negative adjectives, in our 
language, derived from the root, ‘ value,’ should not have explained to the writer 
its true meaning. Thus, besides ‘ valueless,’ said of a thing on which no value can 
be set, because it is not desirable ; there is ‘ invaluable’ spoken of a thing on which 
no value can be set, because it is so exceedingly desirable. Value is the result of com- 
parison, and the moment we lose the means of making this comparison, or valua- 
tion, we also lose the idea of value. Were the term ‘ valuable’ synonymous with 
‘what is really good, or believed to be so,’ as the writer, and Mr. Crabb would 
have us believe, then ‘ invaluable’ would be similar in meaning to ‘ undesirable,’ to 
which it is, in fact, directly opposed. When, in addition to this, we find it express y 
laid down that ‘ value,’ synonymous with * utility,’ is not used in Political Economy, 
what shall we think of the writer complaining of what he calls the ‘ mouopo y o 
the term ?’ Well, indeed, may he deplore it, for when the last excuse is cut o « 
using words in double senses, then “ his occupation’s gone.” He afterwards te mis 
that he intends to confine his use of the term ‘ value’ to that ‘ value which u appre- 
ciable,’ and explains to us that * valuable bodies,’ are those which are suscepti 
‘specific valuation,’ or of being estimated at certain quantities oi that ™ 
immediate connection with the consciousness and perceptions ot the mora ag » 
who are the sole percipients and appreciators of value. Was this definition g 
with a view of making the subject clearer to us ? 
In his second paper, we find his peculiar views more fully developed. 0 s 
them briefly, but I trust fairly, they are as follows . f 
1st. Man is under a continual necessity for food, which is the v 
primary wealth,’ the only essential to his existence, besides water and air. ^ 
2d. There is a tendency also in human population to outrun the nieai 
subsistence, or the quantity of food that can be procured. ^ 
3d. Therefore, there must always exist a large portion of the population^ 
country, who will be willing to give their utmost labour in return or a ^ 
subsistence, that is, for a hare sufficiency of food to support life. Fiom 
foUoWs : . h [ne; the 
4th. That the utmost exertion of which individuals are capaD , 
same, or nearly so, and the quantity of food sufficient for the suppor °^^ 
being the same, or nearly so : we have the means of knowing what ^ 
labour, or its products, a certain quantity of food will comman , 
something * fixed and determinate,’ a‘ positive or real value, whic j, lVar jable 
calls an ‘ invariable value.’ (Should this be true, he has discoverer an 
standard of value, the want of which has been so much regrette , a 
scarcely less notable than his preceding one.) ^ re ated an< * 
5th. No increasing price, and value of food, can be continua > j egtr0 y e r of 
obtained, which it has now become usual to consider as the ultimat 
profits, and the sole creator of rent for landlords. . O ffoo^ 
6th. As the labourer will never receive more than a mere su cie 
and the result of his labour on the soil will be a produce consider a) ^ ceSS irf 
overplus will fall to the share of the owner of the land thus nia ; 0 rity 
wants being 10, and the produce of his labour 15 or 20, and tte ^g^fon » ^ 
mankind being ready to gire, for the possession of 10, their utm ° S ^ reC eip tpI 
for this, though producing 15 or 20, they will only be recompense ^ u p 0 ntl |el11 
10, * those who cannot live by manufactures, will readily rhinal agric ulturi f 
selves the labour of fully working the soil upon any terms the, © ^ a fter^ ari5( 
may be willing to accept, and hence a landed gentry is created. - ^ g0i 
“ What becomes of the modern theories of rent ?” And he nia> we 
the 
