who　increase　〃the　stock　of　permanent　means　of　enjoyment〃　（I。　iii。
  4）？　Or　if；　instead　of　bayonets；　he　supply　bombs；　will　not　the
  absolute　and　final　〃enjoyment〃　of　even　these　energetically
  productive　articles　（each　of　which　costs　ten　pounds（16*））　be
  dependent　on　a　proper　choice　of　time　and　place　for　their
  enfantement；　choice；　that　is　to　say；　depending　on　those
  philosophical　considerations　with　which　political　economy　has
  nothing　to　do？（17*）
  I　should　have　regretted　the　need　of　pointing　out
  inconsistency　in　any　portion　of　Mr　Mill's　work；　had　not　the　value
  of　his　work　proceeded　from　its　inconsistencies。　He　deserves
  honour　among　economists　by　inadvertently　disclaiming　the
  principles　which　he　states；　and　tacitly　introducing　the　moral
  considerations　with　which　he　declares　his　science　has　no
  connection。　Many　of　his　chapters　are；　therefore；　true　and
  valuable；　and　the　only　conclusions　of　his　which　I　have　to　dispute
  are　those　which　follow　from　his　premises。
  Thus；　the　idea　which　lies　at　the　root　of　the　passage　we　have
  just　been　examining；　namely；　that　labour　applied　to　produce
  luxuries　will　not　support　so　many　persons　as　labour　applied　to
  produce　useful　articles；　is　entirely　true；　but　the　instance　given
  fails　　and　in　four　directions　of　failure　at　once…because　Mr
  Mill　has　not　defined　the　real　meaning　of　usefulness。　The
  definition　which　he　has　given…〃　capacity　to　satisfy　a　desire；　or
  serve　a　purpose〃　（III。　i。　2）　　applies　equally　to　the　iron　and
  silver。　while　the　true　definition　which　he　has　not　given；　but
  which　nevertheless　underlies　the　false　verbal　definition　in　his
  mind；　and　comes　out　once　or　twice　by　accident　（as　in　the　words
  〃any　support　to　life　or　strength〃　in　I。　iii。　5）　　applies　to
  some　articles　of　iron；　but　not　to　others；　and　to　some　articles　of
  silver；　but　not　to　others。　It　applies　to　ploughs；　but　not　to
  bayonets；　and　to　forks；　but　not　to　filigree。（18*）
  The　eliciting　of　the　true　definitions　will　give　us　the　reply
  to　our　first　question；　〃What　is　value？〃　respecting　which；
  however；　we　must　first　hear　the　popular　statements。
  〃The　word　'value；'　when　used　without　adjunct；　always　means；
  in　political　economy；　value　in　exchange〃　（Mill；　III。　i。　2）。　So
  that；　if　two　ships　cannot　exchange　their　rudders；　their　rudders
  are；　in　politico…economic　language；　of　no　value　to　either。
  But　〃the　subject　of　political　economy　is　wealth。〃
  （Preliminary　remarks；　page　1）
  And　wealth　〃consists　of　all　useful　and　agreeable　objects
  which　possess　exchangeable　value。〃　　（Preliminary　remarks；　page
  10。）
  It　appears；　then；　according　to　Mr　Mill；　that　usefulness　and
  agreeableness　underlie　the　exchange　value；　and　must　be
  ascertained　to　exist　in　the　thing；　before　we　can　esteem　it　an
  object　of　wealth。
  Now；　the　economical　usefulness　of　a　thing　depends　not　merely
  on　its　own　nature；　but　on　the　number　of　people　who　can　and　will
  use　it。　A　horse　is　useless；　and　therefore　unsaleable；　if　no　one
  can　ride；　　a　sword；　if　no　one　can　strike；　and　meat；　if　no　one
  can　eat。　Thus　every　material　utility　depends　on　its　relative
  human　capacity。
  Similarly：　The　agreeableness　of　a　thing　depends　not　merely　on
  its　own　likeableness；　but　on　the　number　of　people　who　can　be　got
  to　like　it。　The　relative　agreeableness；　and　therefore
  saleableness；　of　〃a　pot　of　the　smallest　ale；〃　and　of　〃Adonis
  painted　by　a　running　brook；〃　depends　virtually　on　the　opinion　of
  Demos；　in　the　shape　of　Christopher　Sly。　That　is　to　say；　the
  agreeableness　of　a　thing　depends　on　its　relatively　human
  disposition。（19*）　Therefore；　political　economy；　being　a　science
  of　wealth；　must　be　a　science　respecting　human　capacities　and
  dispositions。　But　moral　considerations　have　nothing　to　do　with
  political　economy　（III。　i。　2）。　Therefore；　moral　considerations
  have　nothing　to　do　with　human　capacities　and　dispositions。
  I　do　not　wholly　like　the　look　of　this　conclusion　from　Mr
  Mill's　statements：　　let　us　try　Mr　Ricardo's。
  〃Utility　is　not　the　measure　of　exchangeable　value；　though　it
  is　absolutely　essential　to　it。〃　　（Chap。　I。　sect。　i）　essential
  in　what　degree；　Mr　Ricardo？　There　may　be　greater　and　less　degrees
  of　utility。　Meat；　for　instance；　may　be　so　good　as　to　be　fit　for
  any　one　to　eat；　or　so　bad　as　to　be　fit　for　no　one　to　eat。　What　is
  the　exact　degree　of　goodness　which　is　〃essential〃　to　its
  exchangeable　value；　but　not　〃the　measure〃　of　it？　How　good　must
  the　meat　be；　in　order　to　possess　any　exchangeable　value；　and　how
  bad　must　it　be　　（I　wish　this　were　a　settled　question　in　London
  markets）　　in　order　to　possess　none？
  There　appears　to　be　some　hitch；　I　think；　in　the　working　even
  of　Mr。　Ricardo's　principles；　but　let　him　take　his　own　example。
  〃Suppose　that　in　the　early　stages　of　society　the　bows　and　arrows
  of　the　hunter　were　of　equal　value　with　the　implements　of　the
  fisherman。　Under　such　circumstances　the　value　of　the　deer；　the
  produce　of　the　hunter's　day's　labour；　would　be　exactly　equal　to
  the　value　of　the　fish；　the　product　of　the　fisherman's　day's
  labour；　The　comparative　value　of　the　fish　and　game　would　be
  entirely　regulated　by　the　quantity　of　labour　realized　in　each。〃
  （Ricardo；　chap。　iii。　On　Value）。
  Indeed！　Therefore；　if　the　fisherman　catches　one　sprat。　and
  the　huntsman　one　deer；　one　sprat　will　be　equal　in　value　to　one
  deer　but　if　the　fisherman　catches　no　sprat；　and　the　huntsman　two
  deer；　no　sprat　will　be　equal　in　value　to　two　deer？
  Nay　but　　Mr　Ricardo's　supporters　may　say　　he　means；　on　an
  average；　…if　the　average　product　of　a　day's　work　of　fisher　and
  hunter　be　one　fish　and　one　deer；　the　one　fish　will　always　be
  equal　in　value　to　the　one　deer。
  Might　I　inquire　the　species　of　fish？　Whale？　or
  white…bait？（20*）
  It　would　be　waste　of　time　to　purpose　these　fallacies　farther；
  we　will　seek　for　a　true　definition。
  Much　store　has　been　set　for　centuries　upon　the　use　of　our
  English　classical　education。　It　were　to　be　wished　that　our
  well…educated　merchants　recalled　to　mind　always　this　much　of
  their　latin　schooling；　　that　the　nominative　of　valorem　（a　word
  already　sufficiently　familiar　to　them）　is　valor；　a　word　which；
  therefore；　ought　to　be　familiar　to　them。　Valor；　from　valere；　to
  be　well　or　strong；　　strong；　life　（if　a　man）；　or　valiant；
  strong；　for　life　（if　a　thing）；　or　valuable。　To　be　〃valuable；〃
  therefore；　is　to　〃avail　towards　life。〃　A　truly　valuable　or
  availing　thing　is　that　which　leads　to　life　with　its　whole
  strength。　In　proportion　as　it　does　not　lead　to　life；　or　as　its
  strength　is　broken；　it　is　less　valuable；　in　proportion　as　it
  leads　away　from　life；　it　is　unvaluable　or　malignant。
  The　value　of　a　thing；　therefore；　is　independent　of　opinion；
  and　of　quantity。　Think　what　you　will　of　it；　gain　how　much　you　may
  of　it；　the　value　of　the　thing　itself　is　neither　greater　nor　less。
  For　ever　it　avails；　or　avails　not；　no　estimate　can　raise；　no
  disdain　repress；　the　power　which　it　holds　from　the　Maker　of
  things　and　of　men。
  The　real　science　of　political　economy；　which　has　yet　to　be
  distinguished　from　the　bastard　science；　as　medicine　from
  witchcraft；　and　astronomy　from　astrology；　is　that　which　teaches
  nations　to　desire　and　labour　for　the　things　that　lead　to　life：
  and　which　teaches　them　to　scorn　and　destroy　the　things　that　lead
  to　destruction。　And　if；　in　a　state　of　infancy；　they　supposed
  indifferent　things；　such　as　excrescences　of　shell…fish；　and
  pieces　of　blue　and　red　stone；　to　be　valuable；　and　spent　large
  measures　of　the　labour　which　ought　to　be　employed　for　the
  extension　and　ennobling　of　life；　in　diving　or　digging　for　them；
  and　cutting　them　into　various　shapes；or　if；　in　the　same　state　of
  infancy；　they　imagine　precious　and　beneficent　things；　such　as
  air；　light；　and　cleanliness；　to　be　valueless；…or　if；　finally；
  they　imagine　the　conditions　of　their　own　existence；　by　which
  alone　they　can　truly　possess　or　use　anything；　such；　for　instance；
  as　peace；　trust；　and　love；　to　be　prudently　exchangeable；　when　the
  markets　offer；　for　gold；　iron；　or　excresrences　of　shells　　the
  great　and　only　science　of　Political　Economy　teaches　them；　in　all
  these　cases；　what　is　vanity；　and　what　substance；　and　how　the
  service　of　Death；　the　lord　of　Waste；　and　of　eternal　emptiness；
  differs　from　the　service　of　Wisdom；　the　lady　of　Saving；　and　of
  eternal　fulness；　she　who　has　said；　〃I　will　cause　those　that　love
  me　to　inherit　SUBSTANCE；　and　I　will　FILL　their　treasures。〃
  The　〃Lady　of　Savin