On the subject of the wages of labour, Mr. Mill has added his authority to the peculiar views and language of Mr. Ricardo. He says, “Whatever the share of the labourer, such is the rate of wages; and, _vice versâ_, whatever the rate of wages, such is the share of the commodity or commodities’ worth which the labourer receives.”[27] Perhaps the term _rate of wages_ used by Mr. Mill to express the proportion of the produce which falls to the share of the labourer is in some respects preferable to the term _real wages_, used by Mr. Ricardo for the same purpose; but still it is highly objectionable, because it is an old and familiar term used in an entirely new sense. When the expressions high or low rates of wages were used, before the time of Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Mill, no one understood them to mean the proportion of the produce awarded to the labourer. In fact, this meaning had not been before conveyed by any appropriate terms in the language of political economy; yet it is a meaning the expression of which was much wanted in explaining the theory of profits. To express it, therefore, a new term should certainly have been chosen, and not an old one, which was familiar in a different sense. There seems to be no objection to the term _proportionate wages_, which has been used by Mr. Macculloch. On the whole, it must be allowed, that Mr. Mill in his _Elements of Political Economy_ has but little attended to the most obvious rules which ought to guide political economists in the definition and application of their terms. They are often unsanctioned by the proper authorities, and rarely maintained with consistency. CHAPTER VII. ON THE DEFINITION AND APPLICATION OF TERMS, BY MR. MACCULLOCH, IN HIS “PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.” However incautious Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Mill may have been in the definition and application of their terms, I fear it will be found that Mr. Macculloch has been still more so; and that, instead of growing more careful, the longer he considers the subject, he seems to be growing more rash and inconsiderate. The expositors of any science are in general desirous of calling into their service definite and appropriate terms; and for this purpose their main object is to look for characteristic differences, not partial resemblances. Mr. Macculloch, on the other hand, seems to be only looking out for resemblances: and proceeding upon this principle, he is led to confound material with immaterial objects; productive with unproductive labour; capital with revenue; the food of the labourer with the labourer himself; production with consumption; and labour with profits. That this is not an exaggerated view of what has been stated by Mr. Macculloch, in his _Principles of Political Economy_, any person who reads the work with attention may satisfy himself.