60. The consumption of wealth, as revenue, with a view to the final purpose of all production—subsistence and enjoyment; but not with a view to profit. CHAPTER XI. OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEFINITIONS. _Def. 1._ The reader will be aware that, in almost all definitions, the same meaning may be conveyed in different language, and that it is the meaning rather than the mode of expressing it that should be the main object of our consideration. The essential question in the definition of wealth is, whether or not it should be confined to material objects, and the reader is already apprised of my reasons for thinking that it should. Even M. Say, who admits “_les produits immatériels_,” allows, as I have before stated (p. 93), that the multiplication of them “_ne fait rien pour la richesse_;” and M. Storch, in his able “_Cours d’Economie Politique_,” though he justly lays great stress on what he calls _les biens internes_, with a view to civilization and the indirect production of wealth, confines the term _richesses_ to _biens externes_, or material objects; and according to this meaning treats of the _Théorie de la Richesse Nationale_, in the first, and far the largest, part of his work. Altogether, I can feel no doubt that some classification of this kind, or some separation of material from immaterial objects is, in the highest degree, useful in a definition of wealth. The latter part of the definition is of minor importance. It is intended to exclude such material objects as air, light, rain, &c.—which, however necessary and useful to man, are seldom considered as wealth; and, perhaps, it is more objectionable to exclude them, by the introduction of the term exchangeable value into a definition of wealth, than in the mode which has been adopted. If the latter clause were not added, the only consequence would be, that, in comparing different countries together, such objects as air, light, &c., would be neglected as common quantities. _Def. 2._ I have already alluded to the manner in which M. Say has applied the term Utility. His language cannot be considered as consistent, when he says that the price of an article is the measure of its utility, although it might be, according to his own expression, _la chose la plus inutile_.[96] It is much better for the science of political economy that the term should retain its natural and ordinary meaning. All wealth is no doubt useful, but there are so very many immaterial, and some material objects which are highly useful, and yet not wealth, that there can be no excuse for confounding them. M. Storch has not escaped the same kind of error.