And in submitting to your consideration the true definition of the word wealth, I hope that you will not think that I am going to amuse you with vain logomachy or curious speculation. On the contrary, this word is not only the basis of a great science, but there is none, probably, which has so seriously influenced the history of the world and the welfare of nations, according to the meaning given to it at various periods.

For many centuries the legislation of every country in Europe was moulded by the meaning of the word wealth. The eminent French economist, J. B. Say, says that during the two centuries preceding his time, fifty years were spent in wars directly originating out of the meaning given to this word.

Another economist, Storch, speaking of the mercantile system which prevailed so long, says, "It is no exaggeration to say that there are few political errors which have produced more mischief than the mercantile system. ... It has made each nation regard the welfare of its neighbours as incompatible with its own: hence their reciprocal desire of injuring and impoverishing one another, and hence that spirit of commercial rivalry which has been the immediate or remote cause of the greater number of modern wars. ... In short, where it has been the least injurious, it has retarded the progress of national prosperity: everywhere else it has deluged the earth with blood, and has depopulated and ruined some of those countries whose power and opulence it was supposed it would carry to the highest pitch."

So Whately says: "It were well if the ambiguities of this word had done no more than puzzle philosophers. ... It has for centuries done more, and perhaps for centuries to come will do more, to retard the progress of Europe than all other causes put together."

Now, certainly, we may be very sure that no wars in future times will ever again be caused by the meaning of the word wealth. But for all that, is all danger over? Far from it. On the contrary, if possible, we are menaced with a more terrible danger still. Because that dread spectre of Socialism, which now threatens war and revolution to every country on the Continent, and from which this country is not entirely free, is entirely based, as the Socialists themselves say, on the doctrines of wealth put forward by Adam Smith and Ricardo.

These considerations, which are nothing but the literal truth, show you the gravity and the importance of the inquiry to which I now invite you. I hope that this evening we may entirely clear away this reproach, and that the words I am going to say may not vanish from your minds as if they were written in sand on the seashore; but rather that they may be as if they were written with an iron pen, and graven on the rock for ever.

We have now, then, to search for that single general quality which constitutes things wealth.

More than two thousand years ago Aristotle said,

By the term wealth we mean all things whose value can be measured in money.

Thus Aristotle makes exchangeability, or the capability of being bought or sold, to be the sole essence and principle of wealth. Consequently, everything which can be bought or sold is wealth, whatever its nature or its form may be.

Now, here we have a perfectly good general definition, which contains only one general idea, and which is therefore fitted to form the basis of a great science. This single sentence is, in fact, the germ out of which the whole science of economics is to be evolved, just as the huge oak tree is developed out of the tiny acorn.

We have next to discover how many distinct orders of quantities there are which can be bought and sold, or whose value can be measured in money, i.e., possess the quality of exchangeability.

In the first place there are material things of a multitude of different kinds, such as land, houses, cattle, corn, money, etc., which can all be bought and sold, which every one now admits to be wealth.

There are, however, other kinds of quantities whose value can be measured in money, which we have now to consider.