therefore inclined to think that his meaning would be more accurately expressed if, instead of the above, he had adopted as his division, value as a means, and value as an end. Value, in the abstract, means estimation. Nature has implanted in all men a desire for the necessaries and conveniencies of life, which is in fact, the foundation of the value which we set upon them. The utility of any particular product may be resolved into its aptitude to satisfy this natural desire; and its value will be directly as its utility, and the difficulty of its attainment.

We are here, in some measure, at issue with our respected author, who defines the value of a product to be "its power of being exchanged for other articles." This, no doubt, is its value, or rather measures its value as a merchantable commodity, but it cannot constitute its value to the consumer, who has no ulterior object, and by whom it must be valued more than the products in exchange for which he has procured it. Besides, the definition would take no account of things most valuable in themselves, but which from their nature, cannot be made the subject of an exchange. Mr. Longfield's error, if we may presume to say so, arises from making exchange the foundation of value, instead of value the foundation of exchange. Now, to our minds, nothing can be more plain than that the motive for making any exchange is, the desire of possessing that which is of more, in lieu of that which is of less value; and it is, therefore, we think, quite undeniable that things are exchanged because they are valuable, and are not valuable merely because they are exchanged.

That labour is not necessarily a more real measure of the value of products, than any other commodities for which they may be exchanged, has, we think, been very clearly shown :-nor is it, we believe, possible to discover any fixed and invariable standard by a reference to which the variations in the value of other things might be ascertained. That labour is, in most cases, a convenient measure of value, no one is disposed to deny; but we fully subscribe to the observation that "the arguments employed to prove it the only real measure are entirely

inconsistent with every notion that we are accustomed to entertain of the term value. The common argument is thus briefly stated by Mr. M'Culloch, in his principles of political economy, page 297:-" But however the same quantity of labour may be laid out, and whatever may be its produce, it unavoidably occasions the same sacrifice to those by whom it is performed; and hence it is plain that the products of equal quantities of labour, or of toil and trouble, must, how much soever they differ in magnitude, always be of precisely the same real value!" Now, real value in this proposition can have no reference to its utility or exchangeable powers. The proposition, if true, is a trifling one, obtained by a mere comparison of the definition with the thing defined.”

The following view of the origin of exchanges, is very satisfactory and lucid; and, far as the term "value" is concerned, falls in, we are disposed to think, more with our views than with his own.

"However useful, or even necessary to the subsistence of man, any commodity may be, there is a limit to the quantity of it which any individual can consume, and the love or necessity of variety will induce him to part with all that he possesses beyond a certain share, if by parting with it he can procure anything which can contribute more to his enjoyments. And by a wise provision of nature, the more indispensable any commodity is to human subsistence or happiness, the more strict and absolute is the limit within which our consumption of it is confined. The most natural and most urgent of our appetites, are those which can be soonest and most certainly satisfied. Those which in their extent are the most insatiable, can be repressed or denied without any diminu tion of our happiness. By this provision the riches of the wealthy are prevented from interfering with the maintenance of the poor. The richest individual, whatever quantity of corn or other food he may possess or be able to purchase, is not able to consume more than the poor man. His wealth may enable him to command the labour of the poor, but he cannot himself consume the provision intended by providence for their subsistence,

since the energy with which nature rejects all beyond a certain quantity, is always proportionate to the importunity with which she demands that portion. And the nature and reason of man leading him to exchanges, he will dispose of that surplus which he can not use himself, to some one who, in exchange for it, can give him some thing that may contribute to his enjoyment. Its power of serving others will not induce him to keep it, although it may enable him to procure a higher price for it from some one who can use it."

Thus exchange arises out of mutual conveniency, and the rules by which it is regulated may be considered as the consequence of a general law, viz., "that every person is desirous to get as much as he can for the goods of which he disposes. This leads every man to buy as cheap and to sell as dear as he can. The law of mutual competition does the rest."

The price at which any commodity sells, will naturally be regulated by the proportion between the demand and the supply; and should any occasional or accidental disturbance take place by which this proportion may be deranged, the price will react so as speedily to produce a readjustment. It was an ignorance of this principle that led to the absurd and pernicious laws against regrating, forestalling, &c. &c., the explosion of which has been one of the triumphs of political economy. In cases where the supply of provisions falls short, the common people, who cannot reason, are frequently led to ascribe their distress to causes different from the real ones, and to have recourse to remedies which can only aggravate the evil. The modes of charitable relief which are sometimes adopted by the wealthy, are justly liable to strong objections.

66

Persons," observes Mr. Longfield, "of more benevolence than judgment, purchase quantities of the ordinary food of the country, and sell them again to the poor at half price. The few observations that I have made will show, that of all kinds of engrossing this is the most mischievous, and that no regrating or forestalling is so injurious as this species, invented by mistaken benevolence, of buying dear and selling cheap in times of scarcity. It induces the

farmers and dealers to send their stock more speedily to market, and it enables the poorer people to dispense with that harsh, but necessary abstinence, which alone can prevent the provisions from being entirely consumed long before a new supply can be obtained. Whenever this mode of charity is adopted, prices will necessarily rise on account of the increasing scarcity caused by such a premature and improvident consumption, and will generally arrive to such a height that even the reduced rates at which provisions are distributed by the charitable, will be equal to the prices at which they would have been sold if charity had not led to any interference. This evil, caused by injudicious benevolence, could never be detected by experience. The increased prices would naturally be attributed to the scarcity, which confessedly prevailed at the beginning of the season, and originally led to the interference; and the authors of this charitable scheme would even applaud its success, since, on each particular day, they would see the poor getting provisions at half the market price of that day, and would not consider that those very high market prices were principally caused by that charity which diminished the supply, by causing an early consumption of it. This, then, is one of those numerous cases where what is called experience is, in fact, rash, although disguised hypothesis, and where "theory" is extensive experience, enlightened and directed by common sense and reasoning.

66

Ought nothing then be done in times of scarcity to relieve the poor and mitigate their sufferings? Undoubtedly much may be done, if it is judiciously attempted-if we direct our efforts to increasing the supply instead of accelerating the consumption of the provisions. In this country especially, such assistance can be most easily afforded without importation. Potatoes, it is well known, form the ordinary food of the labouring population. If there is a deficient suppply of these, some distress and inconvenience must be felt. The evil will fall lightest if the supply is entirely consumed within the year, instead of part being held over to the next year, when it may not be so much wanted; and if the supply is equally distributed during that period,

instead of too great a portion being consumed at the commencement of the season. Both these advantages, we have seen, are secured by the natural rise of prices, and nothing can be done by private charity or public legislation towards securing a better distribution of the existing supply. But much may be effected in the way of increasing the supply, or at least of diminishing the competition for it. Let those who can afford it, abstain in such times from the use of potatoes, and let them, if practicable, give a supply of bread at cheap prices to the poor. If this is done, the price of the staple food of the country will diminish, instead of increasing as the season advances, and the scarcity will gradually diminish."

The laws which regulate relative wages in the various trades and callings, and the advantages arising from the division of labour, are very ably explained. These are too well known to justify us in dwelling upon them here; but the following remarks are very important

or

"Those circumstances in any country which produce a division of labour, by extending the market for manufactured goods, are the density of the population, and the goodness of the roads and other facilities for conveying goods or passengers by land water. The circumstances in the goods themselves are their lightness or small bulk in proportion to their value, which makes the expense of transporting them to distant places comparatively small; and the cheapness of the article itself, or its fitness to satisfy the wants of the poorer and more numerous classes of the country. This last circumstance increases the market, by converting a larger portion of the community into purchasers. It, as it were, increases the density of the population, since the density of the population, as far as it effects the sale of the article, is merely the number of those persons who are able or willing to purchase it. Accordingly, it is in those goods that are intended for the use of the poor that the greatest improvements in the introduction of machinery, and the uses of a more extended and better contrived system of a division of labour, have been established. The poor, therefore, derive the greatest benefits from such improvements. Those articles that are

intended for the convenience or luxuries of the rich alone, can find few purchasers, since the rich are few in number. The paucity of purchasers renders it impossible that in any article intended for the use of the rich only, a minute or complicated system of division of labour can be established, since the purchasers are too few to render the establishment a profitable speculation. But when an article can generally be purchased by the poor, the market becomes, by that alone, so extensive as to render the introduction of a proper system of division of labour a profitable speculation: it is, therefore, in the fabrication of those goods which are generally required by the labouring poor, that the greatest dexterity, ingenuity, and contrivance are to be found."

The Ricardo, or Malthusian theory of rent is, in substance, adopted by Mr. Longfield, but with such corrections and limitations as render it far less startling and paradoxical than it appeared upon its first promulgation. He does not say that rent is caused by the decreasing fertility of the land, but only that its amount is regulated, and, as he admits, even limited by that circumstance. He thus avoids the absurdity of supposing a difference to be a cause, and does not fall into the fallacy of "non causa, pro causa," by which the reasonings of Mill, McCulloch, and even Ricardo himself, are vitiated.

most saga

Upon this much contested subject it would not become us to pronounce, while the wisest and cious men, in not only this but other countries, are still divided upon it; but we confess we are inclined to put great confidence in the sober and guarded statements of Mr. Longfield. Smith was certainly in error when he described rent as that portion of the produce which may be considered as derived from the bounty of nature, in contradistinction to the portion of it which must be ascribed to human industry; for, if the bounty of nature was increased so that all lands were of equal fertility, and that a supply of corn could always be raised, sufficient for national purposes, and without increasing the cost of production, there would be no rent, except such as might arise out of monopolies, or unjust and impolitic civil regulations; that is,

there would be no rent except such as was caused by a perverse counteraction of the bounty of nature. It is, therefore, something else that causes rent. The supply of land is limited, and the law of produce is, that each additional supply of corn requires increased expenditure and additional labour. The law of population is very different. Human beings increase at a rate that outstrips the increase of their means of subsistence. Thus, demand gains upon supply; and when the best lands in a country have been fully cultivated, it becomes the interest of farmers to cultivate inferior lands at more expense, as there exists a number of persons whose necessities compel them to pay for the produce a sum which will repay the expenses of cultivation. But as there cannot be two prices for the same thing, at the same time in the same market, the produce of the superior lands, which require a less outlay of labour and capital, will sell for the increased price procurable for the produce of the inferior lands which require a greater, and whatever portion of that price exceeds the expenses of cultivation, including the ordinary profits, is called rent. It is immaterial whether this sum remains in the pocket of the farmer, or passes to a proprietor, as a consideration for the use of the land. It is clear that it will not be left with the consumer, who must pay for the produce a sum sufficient to replace the capital employed upon the last land taken into cultivation, with the ordinary profits of stock. And, therefore, it is indisputably certain, that rents are paid because prices are high, and prices are not high because rents are paid.

Malthus contends that rent is an additional source of wealth; Ricardo that it is a mere creation of value. There is, we think, a sense in which both are right, and there is a sense in which both are wrong. It is undoubtedly an additional source of wealth to individuals, while it merely indicates the increasing necessities of the nation at large. And it does, undoubtedly, give an additional value to some produce, which yet would have a higher value if the circumstance which gave rise to it, namely, the vicinity of inferior lands, had not existed. But there can be no question that it causes a different distribution of the wealth of

the community, from what would otherwise take place, and makes provision for a race of independent gentlemen whose affluence causes no pressure upon its inferior members.

"So much of the rent that is at present paid for land," Mr. Longfield observes, "is in reality the profit of capital actually expended, that some have thought they could reduce all rent to this source, and failing to make this out satisfactorily, they represent. rent as a compensation either for the capital laid out in improvements, or as a compensation for the money actually laid out for the purchase of the land by the landlord, or those from whom he derives his title. I need not take up much of your time with an answer to the latter part of the alternative. The tenant has no concern with the purchase money of the land. Paying a high price for the fee simple will not enable the landlord to procure, or the tenant to pay a high rent for the use of the soil. The purchase money being high is the effect of rent, not the cause. If land passes through several hands, that does not increase its value; and if all the land in the kingdom was now in the hands of the original proprietors, the same rent might be paid for them as their present owners receive: and although part of the rent of land, and sometimes even the whole, is only the price paid for the use of buildings, drains, fences, and other improvements effected on the land, yet that is not always the case. I have seen farms in Ireland for which a very high rent was paid, although the total value of all the capital expended in improving the land, did not amount to half as much as the rent paid for it in a single year. In such lands the rent cannot possibly be looked upon as a compensation or return for the capital expended in effecting improvements upon the land."

Colonel Torrens argues that since, as rent rises, the landlord receives a less proportion of the total produce of the soil than he did before, successive applications of labour and capital are always attended with diminished returns. The error of this reasoning is admirably exposed by Mr. Longfield. The two propositions are by no means necessarily connected. The capital most productively expended, is not

necessarily most productive when referred to its whole produce. That will depend upon two considerations; its rate of productiveness, and its amount. A small capital very productively employed will not produce the same total return, as a larger one employed less productively. It is very easy to conceive that a very small multiplicand and a large multiplier, may not give an equal result with a very small multiplier and a very large multiplicand. And Mr. Longfield's inference from the fact, that the tenants proportion of the total produce increases faster than the landlords, would seem to us to be the just one, namely, that the amount of produce, procurable from the inferior soil by the last application of capital, must be great in comparison with that procured from pre-existing cultivation.

Colonel Torrens's error is, Mr. Longfield observes, the more extraordinary, because "all the examples given by writers on political economy to illustrate what is called the decreasing fertility of the soil, would rather seem to prove that not only the portion but the proportion of the produce received by the landlord is continually increasing." In proof of this he refers to Ricardo's principles of political economy, page 56, which fully bears out his statement. "And Mr. Senior, in a letter to Lord Howic, page 62, attempted to prove, from this system, that rent must increase faster than gross produce. His calculations are, however, erroneous, being founded on the supposition, that the successive soils of decreasing fertility, are equal in extent." The contrary being in reality the case, the very opposite of his statement is the fact. The landlords proportion has been decreasing; clearly indicating, as we stated above, "that the portion of produce which is raised by the last application of labour and capital to land, bears a considerable, and with the progress of population, an increasing ratio to the total amount of produce which was raised before such last application of labour and capital took place."

In the conclusion of the lecture he observes, "the same effect might be produced by agricultural improvements, causing a greater addition to the total produce of the soil, than to the differences of the returns to successive ap

plications of capital. In either case we would be warranted in concluding, if we judge of the future by the past, that the cost of production of corn, if it increases at all, must increase very slowly, and that with each step a greater increase of population must arise to create the necessity of taking another step."

Upon the subject of profits, Mr. Longfield is very original and ingenious. He considers them immediately after rent, and before he proceeds to the consideration of wages; thus differing from Smith, who takes them in the order of wages, profits, rent; and from the Ricardo school, by whom they are taken in the order of rent, wages, profits.

As the labourer cannot wait for the slow returns of capital, but must have his subsistence advanced to him before the price of his work can be realized, this work must necessarily be of more value to the employer than to the workman, and the difference of its value in these two cases is what, according to Mr. Longfield, constitutes profits. "It is, as it were, the discount which the labourer pays for prompt payment. It is in his capacity of consumer that the labourer has any concern in the rate of profits;"" which depends upon the proportion which exists between the advance made by the capitalist, and the return he receives, and the length of time for which that advance is made." "The addition which the delay makes to the value of the labour, is exactly equal to the subtraction from its wages for prompt payment. If the labourer, owing to profits being high, receives only five shillings, for making an article which sells for six shillings, it is owing to those profits that the article sells so high as six shillings instead of five shillings."

The theory of profits adopted by the Ricardo economists is very different, and, until we had read Mr. Longfield's observations, we acquiesced in it as both ingenious and satisfactory. "According to it, the productiveness of the worst land under cultivation regulates the rates of profit." The produce of such land is entirely divided between the labourer and the farmer; and, therefore, what is not wages must be considered profits, in cases where there can be no rent. Hence, they infer,