OCR Text |
Show DEFINITIONS OF 'VEALTH [en. I. account of a difficulty in a few cases of little consequence, 'vould refuse to n1ake use of so convenient an arrangement. It has so1netin1es been said that every writer is at liberty to define his terms as he pleases, provided he al\vays uses thetn strictly in the sense proposed. Such a liberty, however, tnay be fairly doubted; at least it must be allowed that if a person chooses to give a very inadequate or unusual definition in reference to the subject on ,vhich he proposes to treat, he n1ay at once render his inquiries completely futile. If, for instance, a \Vriter, professing to treat of the wealth of nations, 'vere to define 'vealth to consist exclusively of broad cloth, it is obvious that, however consistent he might be in the use of his tern1s, or ho\vever valuable a treatise he n1ight produce on this one article, he \\'ould evidently have given but very little information to those who w~ere look in o· for a treatise b on 'vealth, according to the con1n1on acceptation of the tern1. , · - So important, indeed, is an appropriate definition, that perhaps it is not going too far to say, that the cotnparative merits of the systen1s of the Econo~ ists and Ad~Tl_l Stnith depend mainly upon their different definitions of wealth and of productive labour. If the definitions \vhich the Econotnists have given of \Vealth and of productive labour be correct, their system has the aclvantao-c : if the definitions \vhich Aclam Smith has give~ of \vealth and of .p roducti.v e labour be the 1nost correct' Jzis systen1 ·1s supenor. SEC. I.] AND PRODUCTIVE LABOUR. Of those writers who have either given a. regular definition of wealth, or have left the sense in ,vhich they understand the term to be collected fron1 their )Vorks, some appear to have confined it ,vithin too narrow limits, and others to have extended it greatly too far. In the forn1er class the Economists stand pre-en1inent. They have confined 'vealth, or riches, to the neat produce derived frotn the land; and in so doing they have greatly diminished the value of their inquiries, in reference to the n1ost fa1n'iliar and accustomed sense in ,vhich the tern1 wealth is understood. Among the definitions \vhich have extended the n1eaning of the tern1 wealth too. far, Lord Lauderdale's tnay be taken as an example. He defines wealth to be, " All that man desires as useful and , delightful to hin1." * This definition obviously includes every thing, whether material or intellectual, whether tangible or other,vise, which contributes to the advantage or pleasure of tnankind, and, of course, includes the benefits and gratifications derived fron1 religion, fron1 n1orals, fron1 ~ political and civil liberty, from oratory, from instructive and agreeable conversation, from tnusic, dancing, acting, and other sin1ilar sources. But an inquiry into the nature and causes of these kinds of wealth \VOtdd evidently extend beyond the bounds of ~ny singl~ science. If .,ve "'ish to attain any thing ljke precision in our inquiries, 'vhen we treat of wealth, * Inquiry into the Nature and 0Figin of Public \Vealth, c. ii. p. 57. 2d edit. • |