STATED AND ILLUSTRATED,
WITH
AN APPLICATION OF IT TO THE ALTERATIONS IN
THE VALUE OF THE ENGLISH CURRENCY
SINCE 1790.
—♦—
By the Rev. T. R. MALTHUS, M.A. F.R.S.
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE
EAST INDIA COLLEGE, HERTFORDSHIRE.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
MDCCCXXIII.
London: Printed by C. Roworth,
Bell-yard, Temple-bar.
1
It is generally allowed that the word value, incommon language, has two different meanings;one, value in use, the other, value in exchange;the first expressing merely the usefulness of anobject in supplying the most important wantsof mankind, without reference to its power ofcommanding other objects in exchange; andthe second expressing the power of commandingother objects in exchange, without reference toits usefulness in supplying the most importantwants of mankind.
It is obviously value in the last sense, notthe first, with which the science of PoliticalEconomy is mainly concerned.
But the power of one object to commandanother in exchange, or in other words thepower of purchasing, may obviously arise eitherfrom causes affecting the object itself, or thecommodities against which it is exchanged.
In the one case, the value of the object itself2may properly be said to be affected; in the other,only the value of the commodities which it purchases;and if we could suppose any object alwaysto remain of the same value, the comparison ofother commodities with this one would clearlyshow, which had risen, which had fallen, andwhich had remained the same. The value ofany commodity estimated in a measure of thiskind might with propriety be called its absoluteor natural value; while the value of a commodityestimated in others which were liable tovariation, whether they were one or many,could only be considered as its nominal orrelative value, that is, its value in relation toany particular commodity, or to commoditiesin general.
That a correct measure of the power of purchasinggenerally, or of commanding such importantcommodities as the necessaries and conveniencesof life, in whatever way such power mightarise, would be very desirable, cannot for a momentbe doubted, as it would at once enable usto form a just estimate and comparison of wages,salaries, and revenues, in all countries, and at allperiods. But when we consider what such ameasure implies, we must feel certain that noone object exists, or can be supposed to exist,3with such qualities as would fit it to become astandard measure of this kind. It would implysteadiness of value, not merely in one object,but in a great number, which is contrary to alltheory and experience.
Whether there is any object, which, thoughit cannot measure the power of purchasing generallyunder the varying facilities of productionand varying state of the demand and supply bywhich different commodities are affected, maybe a correct measure of absolute and naturalvalue as above described, is the specific objectof the present inquiry.
It follows directly, from the principles ofAdam Smith, that the