"Mr McCulloch might unquestionably discover some resemblance between the salt and the meat which it seasons: they bothcontribute, when used in proper proportions, to compose a palatable and nutritive meal, and in general we may leave it tothe taste and discretion of the individual to determine these proportions; but are we on that account to confound the twosubstances together, and to affirm that they are equally nutritive? Are we to define and apply our terms in such a way as tomake it follow from our statements that if the individual were to compound his repast of half salt and half meat, it wouldequally conduce to his health and strength."Further, the matter is thus argued:
"Mr McCulloch states, that a taste for the gratifications derived from the unproductive labourers of Adam Smith, `hasexactly the same effect upon national wealth as a taste for tobacco, champagne, or any other luxury."' "This," says MrMalthus, "may be directly denied unless we define wealth in such a manner as will entitle us to say that the enjoymentsderived by a few great landlords, from the parade of menial servants and followers, will tell as effectually in an estimate ofwealth as a large mass of manufacturers and foreign commodities.But when M.Chaptal endeavoured to estimate the wealthof France, and Mr Colquhoun that of England, we do not find the value of these enjoyments computed in any of their tables.
And certainly if wealth means what it is understood to mea.n in common conversation, and in the language of the highestauthorities in the science of Political Economy, no effects on national wealth can or will be more distinct than those whichresult from a taste for material conveniences and luxuries, and a taste for menial servants and followers.The exchange of theordinary products of land for manufactures, tobacco, and champagne, necessarily generates capital; and the more suchexchanges prevail, the more do those advantages prevail which result from the growth of capital and a better structure ofsociety; while an exchange of necessaries for menial services, beyond a certain limited amount, obviously tends to check thegrowth of capital, and, if pushed to a considerable extent, to prevent accumulation entirely, and to keep a countrypermanently in a semi-barbarous state." Dr Travers Twiss, in his View of the Progress of Political Economy, states andcriticises the opinions of writers on this subject.He thus gives an account of Mr Malthus's doctrine on this subject.
Mr Malthus, to avoid the prejudice which prevails against what is called unproductive labour, had proposed to call suchlabour personal services.Dr Twiss remarks, "Labour then, he" [Mr Malthus] says, "may be distinguished into two kinds, productive labour, and personal services,meaning by productive labour, that labour which is so directly productive of material wealth, as to be capable of estimationin the quantity or value of the object produced, which object is capable of being transferred without the presence of theproducer; and meaning by personal services, that kind of labour or industry, which however highly useful and importantsome of it may be, and however much it may conduce indirectly, to the production and security of material wealth, does notrealise itself on any object which can be valued and transferred without the presence of the person performing such service,and cannot therefore be made to enter into an estimate of national wealth."This," says Dr Twiss, " though differing in name, is essentially the doctrine of Adam Smith."Mr Senior puts the distinction very ingeniously ( Ency.Metrop.art.Polit.Econ.):
