The reader will be aware, from the manner in which I have treated the subject, and the discussions into which I have allowed myself to enter, that what I consider as the main obstacle to a more general agreement among political economists, is rather the differences of opinion which have prevailed as to the classes of objects which are to be separated from each other by appropriate names, than as to the names which these classes should receive. It seems indeed to be pretty generally and most properly agreed, that the principal names which have been so long in use should remain. It would certainly be an Herculean task to change them, nor would any change which could be adopted in the present state of things remove the real difficulties. It has been most justly observed by Bacon, that “to say, where notions cannot be fitly reconciled, that there wanteth a term or nomenclature for it, is but a shift of ignorance.” When some people think that every sort of gratification, whether arising from immaterial or material objects, from spiritual comfort or comfortable clothing, should be designated by the same appropriate term; while others think it of great use and importance that they should be distinguished, it is obvious that such different notions cannot be reconciled by a new nomenclature. The grand preliminary required is that the notions should be fitly reconciled; and till this is done, a change of names would be perfectly futile. Preserving therefore, generally, the old names, the great practical question is, what they are to include and what they are to exclude? CHAPTER X. DEFINITIONS IN POLITICAL ECONOMY. WEALTH. 1. The material objects necessary, useful or agreeable to man, which have required some portion of human exertion to appropriate or produce. UTILITY. 2. The quality of being serviceable or beneficial to mankind. The utility of an object has generally been considered as proportioned to the necessity and real importance of these services and benefits. All wealth is necessarily useful; but all that is useful is not necessarily wealth. VALUE. 3. Has two meanings—value in use, and value in exchange. VALUE IN USE. 4. Is synonymous with Utility. It rarely occurs in political economy, and is never implied by the word value when used alone. VALUE, OR VALUE IN EXCHANGE. 5. The relation of one object to some other, or others in exchange, resulting from the estimation in which each is held. When no second object is specified, the value of a commodity naturally refers to the causes which determine this estimation, and the object which measures it. Value is distinguished from wealth in that it is not confined to material objects, and is much more dependent upon scarcity and difficulty of production.