sion; upon the confounding together of two things, which
are remarkably different, by failing to distinguish the
double meaning of an ambiguous term. The two senses of
the word consumption are not a little remarkable. We say,
that a manufacturer consumes the wine which is laid up
in his cellar, when he drinks it; we say too, that he has
consumed the cotton, or the wool in his warehouse, when
his workmen have wrought it up: he consumes part of his
money in paying the wages of his footmen; he consumes
another part of it in paying the wages of the workmen in
his manufactory. It is very evident, however, that con-
sumption, in the case of the wine and the livery servants,
means something very different from what it means in the
case of the wool or cotton, and the manufacturing ser-
vants. In the first case, it is plain, that consumption means
extinction, actual annihilation of property; in the second
case, it means more properly renovation, and increase of
property. The cotton or wool is consumed only that it may
appear in a more valuable form; the wages of the work-
men only that they may be repaid, with a profit, in the
produce of their labor. In this manner too, a land propri-
etor may consume a thousand quarters of corn a year, in
the maintenance of dogs, of horses for pleasure, and of
livery servants; or he may consume the same quantity of
corn in the maintenance of agricultural horses, and of
agricultural servants. In this instance too, the consump-
tion of the corn, in the first case, is an absolute destruction
of it. In the second case, the consumption is a renovation
and increase. The agricultural horses and servants will
produce double or triple the quantity of corn which they
have consumed. The dogs, the horses of pleasure, and the
livery servants, produce nothing. We perceive, therefore,
that there are two species of consumption; which are so
far from being the same, that the one is more properly the
very reverse of the other. The one is an absolute destruc-
tion of property, and is consumption properly so called;
the other is a consumption for the sake of reproduction,
and might perhaps with more propriety be called employ-
ment than consumption. Thus the land proprietor might
with more propriety be said to employ, than consume the
corn, with which he maintains his agricultural horses and
servants; but to consume the corn which he expends upon
his dogs, livery servants, etc. The manufacturer too, would
most properly be said to employ, not to consume, that part
of his capital, with which he pays the wages of his manu-
facturing servants; but to consume in the strictest sense of
the word what he expends upon wine, or in maintaining
livery servants. Such being the remarkable difference be-
tween the meanings of the word consumption, the man in
whose reasonings and doctrines those meanings are con-
founded, must arrive at woeful conclusions.
It appears from this very explanation of the meanings
of the term, that it is of importance to the interests of the
country, that as much as possible of its annual produce
should be employed, but as little as possible of it con-
sumed. The whole annual produce of every country is
distributed into two great parts; that which is destined to
be employed for the purpose of reproduction, and that
which is destined to be consumed. That part which is
destined to serve for reproduction, naturally appears
again next year, with its profit. This reproduction, with
the profit, is naturally the whole produce of the country
for that year. It is evident, therefore, that the greater the
quantity of the produce of the preceding year, which is
destined to administer to reproduction in the next, the
greater will naturally be the produce of the country for
that year. But as the whole annual produce of the country
is necessarily distributed into two parts, the greater the
quantity which is taken for the one, the smaller is the
quantity which is left for the other. We have seen, that
the greatness of the produce of the country in any year,
is altogether dependent upon the greatness of the quantity
of the produce of the former year which is set apart for
the business of reproduction. The annual produce is
therefore the greater, the less the portion is which is
allotted for consumption. If by consumption therefore
Mr. Spence means, what we have termed consumption
properly so called, or dead unproductive consumption,
and it does appear that this is his meaning, his doctrine
is so far from being true, that it is the very reverse of the
truth. The interests of the country are the most promoted,
not by the greatest, but by the least possible consumption
of this description.
Let not Mr. Spence, however, be alarmed. Let him rest
in perfect assurance, that the whole annual produce of
the country will be always very completely consumed,
whether his landholders choose to spend or to accumu-
late. No portion of it will be left unappropriated to the
one species of consumption, or to the other. No man, if
he can help it, will let any part of his property lie useless
and run to waste. Nothing is more clear, than that the
self-interest of men, ever has impelled and ever will
impel them, with some very trifling exceptions, to use
every particle of property which accrues to them, either
for the purpose of immediate gratification, or of future
profit. That part, however, which is destined for future
profit, is just as completely consumed, as that which is
destined for immediate gratification. A thousand plough-
men consume fully as much corn and cloth in the course
of a year as a regiment of soldiers. But the difference
between the kinds of consumption is immense. The labor
of the ploughman has, during the year, served to call into
existence a quantity of property, which not only repays
the corn and cloth which he has consumed, but repays it
with a profit. The soldier on the other hand produces
nothing. What he has consumed is gone, and its place is
JAMES MILL
5
ON THE OVERPRODUCTION AND UNDERCONSUMPTION FALLACIES