them? At every turn this truth meets us, that it is not the Labour of the producer which constitutes a thing Wealth, but the Demand of the Consumer.

Nothing can be more suicidal than the cry against rich men which so many wild Socialists and Communists have raised. Where would working men be without rich men? If a man has not wealth himself, but only his labour to sell, what is most to his advantage? Why, of course, that there should be as many rich men as possible to compete for his labour. If a man has nothing but his labour to sell, does he go to a multitude of paupers like himself, who cannot buy it, or does he seek a concourse of rich men who will compete for it? Nothing can be more fatal than the cry against Capital so often unthinkingly uttered. How could working men exist without capital? A capitalist is a man whose business it is to rack his brains to provide work for working men, and to give them their reward before he can get any for himself; and often, indeed, he gives them a reward and gets none for himself. If any one wishes to see the effect of a destruction of capital let him observe the consequences to working men of a great commercial crisis like that which has recently taken place in the United States, where an enormous amount of Credit, which served as wages for working men, has been annihilated. Working men can no more do without capital than capital can do without them; and it is for their interest that capital should increase and multiply as much as possible to compete for their labour. When working men complain of the tyranny of capital, and the low price of their labour, it is not the tyranny of capital which is their enemy, but the tyranny of their own excessive numbers. Their interest is to multiply their "tyrants" and diminish their own numbers. What they really want is more capitalists, more rich men, and fewer working men. However, we are happy to think that working men in this country are touched to a comparatively small extent with the insane phrenzy of the continental Socialists and Communists, whose object is to destroy all capital and rich Their struggle in the main is only to obtain what they consider a fair division of the fund which provides both wages and profits. We shall in a subsequent chapter have to consider the various methods proposed to attain that object.

CHAPTER XIV.

ON RIGHTS, OR INCORPOREAL WEALTH.

1. We now come to that part of Economics in which Economists have hitherto failed more completely than in any other, from their want of knowledge of the most elementary principles of the Law of Property. We have now to deal with the third species of Economic Quantities, Products, Services and RIGHTS; or as they may be otherwise symbolised by Money, Labour, and CREDIT.

The first modern Economists said that all exchanges are of Products against Products. This is evidently incomplete, because in the very rudest state of society men perform services and receive some remuneration for them.

Beccaria said that all exchanges are of products against products; products against services; and of services against services and Bastiat sought to correct the first rude notions of the Physiocrates by saying that all exchanges are of labour against labour.

But such an idea of Economics, though somewhat in advance of the first, is only suitable to the lowest state of society like that of Australian savages. As soon as ever a certain degree of civilisation commences, a third species of Economic Quantities is created, namely, RIGHTS, abstract Rights not associated with any specific thing or service. And this species of Right, in a commercial country like England far exceeds in magnitude the other two species of Economic Quantities.

With the first DEBT that was created among men, a new species of Property sprang into existence: and when this Property was made saleable, a new species of Wealth was created, which has produced greater effects on the fortunes of mankind than any other.

So few remains of Greek Law and jurisprudence have come down to us that we cannot say whether they recognised the existence of Incorporeal Property, or had any special name for it.

There are several divisions of Property in use among jurists, such as immoveable and moveable, or, as they are frequently

called, real and personal: but the one most suitable for Economics is that given in Roman Law" Moreover, some kinds of property (res) are corporeal, and others Incorporeal. Corporeal Property consists of those things which can by nature be touched, as land, a slave, clothes, gold, silver, and innumerable other things.

"Incorporeal Property is that which cannot be touched, such as those things which consist in a mere RIGHT, such as an inheritance, a usufruct, a usage, and obligations in whatever mode contracted. And it makes no difference that corporeal things are included in an inheritance, because also the fruits from land are corporeal: so also what is due to us on an obligation is usually corporeal; such as land, a slave, or money; but the Right of inheritance itself, the Right of enjoyment, and the RIGHT of the obligation, are Incorporeal."

Now, "Res" in Roman Law comprehends everything of whatever nature it may be, which can be the subject matter of a RIGHT.

And these Rights are repeatedly declared to be WEALTH in Roman Law, thus

Digest, 50, 16, 23-" Under the name of wealth (rei) causes and Rights are included."

Digest, 50, 16, 19-" Rights of action are also properly included undergoods' (bonis)."

Digest, 50, 16, 222-" Under the name of Wealth (Pecunia) not only ready money, but all Property (res), both immoveable and moveable, both corporeal and RIGHTS (jura) are included."

So Ulpian, Lib. 43 ad Edict.-" We are accustomed to buy and sell debts payable on a certain event, or on a certain day. For that is wealth (res) which may be bought and sold."

Thus saleable Rights of all kinds are expressly included under the terms "Pecunia," "Res," " Bona," in Roman Law. Though, as we shall shortly shew, there is an immensely greater variety of saleable Rights created under modern civilisation than existed in Roman Law.

So also the word mera, merchandise, included any object which could be transferred from the seller to the buyer, which was capable of being freely bought and sold. "It might be either immoveable or moveable, corporeal or incorporeal, existent or 1 Gaius, II., 12-14. Just. Institut., II., 2. Dig., I., 8.

non-existent, certain or uncertain, a horse, a Right of action, servitude, or thing to be acquired, or the acquisition whereof depends on chance."1

And the same is true in every system of Law. In French Law the words "biens" and "choses" include everything which can be the subject of a right, which can be bought and sold.

It is precisely the same in English Law. Saleable Rights of all kinds are expressly included under the words "goods and chattels " or "effects" in an Act of Parliament; 2 or in a will, unless there be words to negative such an inference; and in the clause of "reputed ownership" in bankruptcy.

When, therefore, it is clearly understood that a saleable Right -and we say saleable to distinguish it from a mere moral or titular right is a commodity, merchandise, wealth, or an Economic Quantity, which may be valued, bought, and sold, precisely like so much land, or a house, clothes, corn, cattle, or money, the whole subject of modern commerce can be made simple and intelligible.

In fact, most of the difficulty has been created by the erroneous ideas of Value propagated by so many modern writers, that it is the Quantity of Labour employed in producing something: whereas when we firmly grasp the conception that the Value of a thing is anything else, of whatever nature, it will exchange for, the whole obscurity and confusion is cleared up. Because it is the price paid for the Right which is its value; just as the value of corn, clothes, or a watch, is the price paid for them: so if a Right will sell for £10, and so much corn, clothes, or a watch will also sell for £10, the value of all these things is equal.

We have already pointed out that the true meaning of the word Property is not a thing, but a Right to something, and it is invariably used in this sense by our older writers. Thus grand old Wycliffe says "They made Property of ghostly goods, where no Property may be ; and professed to have no Property in worldly goods, where alone Property is lawful."

1 Colquhoun. A Summary of the Roman Civil Law, § 1638. 2 Slade v. Morley, 4 Co. R., 92 b. Ford's case, 12 Co. R. 1. case, Lytt. 86. Ryal v. Rowles, 1 Ves. sen., 348.

Clayton's

Kendall v.

3 Anon., 1 P. Wms., 267. Campbell v. Prescott, 15 Ves. 500. Kendall, 4 Russ, C.C., 360. Parker v. Marchant, 1 Y. & Coll. C.C., 290.

Ryal v. Rowles, 1 Ves. sen., 348. Colville ex parte, Mont. C.B., 110. Belcher v. Campbell, 8 Q. B. 1.

It has caused immense confusion, using the word Property sometimes to mean the goods, and sometimes the Right to goods. It would be just as rational to call goods "ownership" as to call them "property."

Once for all, we invariably use the word Property, not to mean goods, but the exclusive Right to use them: and when we exchange goods such as corn and wine, we exchange the Right to use them in any way we please. To create a Property is simply to create an exclusive Right; and when these Rights are made saleable, they are technically termed Wealth. And thus when we see that Rights can be created, sold or exchanged, and annihilated, we see that Wealth can be created and annihilated.

The distinguished French jurist, Ortolan, observes that jurisprudence has nothing to do with things, but only with RIGHTS to things. Thus when a person has damaged any goods belonging to another person, it is not for the actual damage done to the goods that an action lies; but for the injury done to the person: that is, for the infringement of his legal right (injuria) to the enjoyment and use of the goods. If the goods belong to no person there is no injury, and no right of action.

It is precisely the same in Economics: it has nothing to do with the material substances, but only with the Rights to them: and with the exchanges of these Rights. And the object of the Science of Economics is to investigate the laws which govern the proportions in which they will exchange for each other.

Neither to grow corn, nor to manufacture it, nor to eat it, is an Economic phenomenon ; but only to exchange it. Neither is it an Economic phenomenon to present a gift to a man: nor to take away anything from him: but only to buy and sell with him.

And when this is clearly understood, that Property, or Wealth, is not the material solid substance, but only the Right to it, we find that the difficulty of the Physiocrates, who maintained that all wealth comes from the earth and must be material, because Nothing can come from Nothing, and man can create nothing, vanishes.

No one says that man can create a single particle of solid matter: but every one knows that man can create, transfer, and annihilate Rights to matter.

Let us imagine that Robinson Crusoe had found a help-meet for himself in his island: and a little family of Crusoes grew up.