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. i. 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.[48] [48] Filigree: that is to say, generally, ornament dependent on complexity, not on art. The eliciting of the true definition 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. 3). 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.