Lie: and may be called Moral, as the other may Logical, Truth. A witness therefore may comply with his oath to speak the Truth, though it so happen that he is mistaken in some particular of his evidence, provided he is fully convinced that the thing is as he states it.

Truth is not unfrequently applied, in loose and inaccurate language, to arguments; where the proper expression would be "correctness," "conclusiveness," or validity."

66

Truth again, is often used in the sense of Reality. People speak of the Truth or Falsity of facts; properly speaking, they are either real or fictitious: it is the statement that is true" or 'false." The "true" cause of any thing, is a common expression; meaning "that which may with Truth be assigned as the cause.' The senses of Falsehood correspond.

"Truth" in the sense of "reality" is also opposed to shadows,-types,-pictures, &c. Thus, "the Law was given by Moses, but grace and 'truth' came by Jesus Christ" for the Law had only a "shadow of good things to come."

The present is an ambiguity of which the Romanists have often availed themselves with great effect; the ambiguity of the word Church (which see) lending its aid to the fallacy. "Even the Protestants," they say, "dare not deny ours to be a TRUE CHURCH; now there can be but ONE TRUE CHURCH;" (which they support by those passages of Scripture which relate to the collective body of Christians in all those several branches which also are called in Scripture Churches ;) "ours therefore must be the true Church; if you forsake us, you forsake the truth and the Church, and consequently shut yourself out from the promises of the Gospel. Those who are of a logical and accurate turn of mind will easily perceive that

the sense in which the Romish Church is admitted by her opponents to be a true Church, is that of reality; it is a real, not a pretended Church;-it may be truly said to be a Church. The sense in which the Romanists seize the concession is, that of a Church teaching true doctrines; which was never conceded to the Church of Rome by the Protestants; who hold, that a Church may err without ceasing to be a Church.

WHENCE.-See " WHY," and "REASON."

WHY? As an interrogative, this word is employed in three senses: viz. "By what proof?" (or Reason) "From what Cause?" "For what purpose?" This last is commonly called the "final cause." E. G. "Why is this prisoner guilty of the crime?" Why does a stone fall to the earth?" 66 Why did you go to London?" Much confusion has arisen from not distinguishing these different inquiries. See REASON.

66

N. B. As the words which follow are all of them connected together in their significations, and as the explanations of their ambiguities have been furnished by the kindness of the Professor of Political Economy, it seemed advisable to place them by themselves, and in the order in which they appeared to him most naturally to arrange themselves.

The foundations of Political Economy being a few general propositions deduced from observation or from consciousness, and generally admitted as soon as stated, it might have been expected that there would be as little difference of opinion among Political-Economists as among

リ

Mathematicians; that, being agreed in their premises, they could not differ in their conclusions, but through some error in reasoning, so palpable as to be readily detected. And if they had possessed a vocabulary of general terms as precisely defined as the mathematical, this would probably have been the case. But as the terms of this Science are drawn from common discourse, and seldom carefully defined by the writers who employ them, hardly one of them has any settled and invariable meaning, and their ambiguities are perpetually overlooked. The principal terms are only seven: viz. VALUE, WEALTH, LABOUR, CAPITAL, RENT, WAGES, PROFITS.

1. VALUE. As value is the only relation with which Political Economy is conversant, we might expect all Economists to be agreed as to its meaning. There is no subject as to which they are less agreed.

The popular, and far the most convenient, use of the word, is to signify the capacity of being given and received in exchange. So defined, it expresses a relation. The value of any one thing must consist in the several quantities of all other things which can be obtained in exchange for it, and can never remain fixed for an instant. Most writers admit the propriety of this definition at the outset, but they scarcely ever adhere to it.

Adam Smith defines Value to mean either the utility of a particular object, or the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The first he calls "Value in use," the second "Value in exchange." But he soon afterwards says, that equal quantities of labour at all times and places are of equal Value to the labourer, whatever may be the quantity of goods he receives in return for them; and that labour never varies in its own Value. It is clear that he affixed, or thought he had affixed, some other

meaning to the word; as the first of these propositions is contradictory, and the second false, whichever of his two definitions we adopt.

Mr. Ricardo appears to set out by admitting Adam Smith's definition of Value in exchange. But in the greater part of his "Principles of Political Economy," he uses the word as synonymous with Cost: and by this one ambiguity has rendered his great work a long enigma.

Mr. Malthus* defines Value to be the power of purchasing. In the very next page he distinguishes absolute from relative Value, a distinction contradictory to his definition of the term, as expressive of a relation.

Mr. M'Culloch + distinguishes between real and exchangeable, or relative, Value. And in his nomenclature, the exchangeable, or relative, value of a commodity consists in its capacity of purchasing ;—its real Value in the quantity of labour required for its production or appropriation.

All these differences appear to arise from a confusion of cause and effect. Having decided that commodities are Valuable in proportion to the labour they have respectively cost, it was natural to call that labour their Value.

2. WEALTH. Lord Lauderdale has defined Wealth to be "all that man desires." Mr. Malthus, "those material objects which are necessary, useful, or agreeable." Adam Smith confines the term to that portion of the results of land and labour which is capable of being accumulated. The French Economists, to the net product of land. Mr. M'Culloch & and M. Storch, || to those material products

* "Measure of Value," p. 1.

+ "Principles of Political Economy," Part III. sect. 1.

"Principles of Political Economy," page 28.

66

Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica," Vol. VI. p. 217. "Cours d'Economie Politique," Tome I. p. 91. Paris edit.

which have exchangeable value; according to Colonel Torrens it consists of articles which possess utility and are produced by some portion of voluntary effort. M. Say+ divides wealth into natural and social, and applies the latter term to whatever is susceptible of exchange. It will be observed that the principal difference between these definitions consists in the admission or rejection of the qualifications "exchangeable," and, "material."

It were well if the ambiguities of this word had done. no more than puzzle philosophers. One of them gave birth to the mercantile system. In common language, to grow rich is to get money; to diminish in fortune is to lose money: a rich man is said to have a great deal of money; a poor man, very little: and the terms Wealth and Money are in short employed as synonymous. In consequence of these popular notions (to use the words of Adam Smith) all the different nations of Europe have studied every means of accumulating gold and silver in their respective countries. This they have attempted by prohibiting the exportation of money, and by giving bounties on the exportation, and imposing restrictions on the importation, of other commodities, in the hope of producing what has been called a "favourable balance of trade;" that is, a trade in which, the imports being always of less value than the exports, the difference is paid in money. A conduct as wise as that of a tradesman who should part with his goods only for money; and instead of employing their price in paying his workmen's wages, or replacing his stock, should keep it for ever in his till. The attempt to force such a trade has been as vain, as the trade, if it could have been obtained, would have been mischievous. But the results have been fraud, punishment, and poverty at home, and discord and war without. It has made nations consider the Wealth of their customers a source of loss *"Production of Wealth," p. 1.

+"Traité d'Economie Pol." Liv. II. Chap. ii.