pose, do not they seem to us to be WEALTH, for the very same reason that gold and silver are? And it is plain that those who possess them are richer, &c." This dialogue is certainly one of the earliest known to exist on the subject, and it contains some of the fundamental conceptions of Economics. The author saw clearly that value consists in exchangeability, and that all value is local, that is to say that a thing may be wealth in one place, and among some people, and not wealth in other places, and among other people: and consequently that whatever possesses the quality of exchangeability is wealth, whatever its nature be, and however small the sphere of its exchangeability may be. The writer also clearly demonstrates that each of the professions and sciences is a great estate, which produces utilities which are wealth to the possessors of them. That intellectual wealth is in fact part of the national capital. This doctrine is, as we have seen, admitted by Smith, but it quite overthrows what appears to be his fundamental definition of wealth. 6. J. B. Say was the first writer in modern times who brought this doctrine forward with due prominence. He says ': "He who has acquired a talent at the price of an annual sacrifice, enjoys an accumulated capital, and this wealth, although immaterial, is nevertheless so little fictitious that he daily exchanges the exercise of his art for gold and silver." In the Epitome at the end of the Traité he defines an Immaterial Product to be a utility, which is not fixed in any material substance, such as the services of a physician, a lawyer, a civil or military functionary, and, indeed, we may say labour of all sorts, which expires in the use. This doctrine Say subsequently repeats in several places. Thus he says:-"Since it has been proved that immaterial property, such as talents, and acquired personal abilities, form an integral part of social wealth." 3 So again: "You see, gentlemen, that utility, under whatever form it presents itself, is the source of the value of things; and what may surprise you is, that this utility can be created, can have value, and become the subject of an exchange, without being incorporated in any material object. A manufacturer of 1 Traité, p. 34. 2 Cours d'Economie politique, vol. I., p. 4. Cours, Part I., c. 5. glass places value in sand; a manufacturer of cloth places it in wool: but a physician sells us a utility without being incorporated in any matter. This utility is truly the fruit of his studies, his labour, and his capital. We buy it in buying his opinion. It is a real product, but immaterial."-"The science, the talent of a physician, a surgeon, a professor, are not they acquired capital yielding a revenue? The oral instruction they have received are yet not attached to any material product." In his synoptical table' of what constitutes the productive funds of a nation, he expressly enumerates intellectual and industrial faculties of all sorts; and he treats immaterial products and services as vendible commodities, in all respects on the same footing as material products. So also:-"We must include under capital many objects which have a value, although they are not material. The practice of an advocate, a notary, the custom of a shop, the reputation of a sign-board, the title of a periodical work, are undoubtedly property (biens): they may be bought and sold, and be the subject of a contract; and they are also capital, because they are the fruit of accumulated labour. An advocate, by the wisdom of his advice, by his industry and other qualities, has made the public have a good opinion of his chambers: this good opinion gives him the right to higher fees. This excess of profit is the revenue of a capital entitled reputation, and this capital is the fruit of the care and pains the advocate has taken during many years." It is true that Say has contradicted himself in other passages in the most extraordinary manner, which has given rise to all the confusion he has caused on the subject of Credit. But we must reserve the examination of this until a future chapter. All we wish to shew here is that Say includes intellectual qualities of all sorts under the title of Wealth. 7. The last writer, we think it necessary to cite, is Senior. He says: "If the question whether personal qualities are articles of wealth had been proposed in classical times, it would have appeared too clear for discussion. In Athens every one would have replied that they, in fact, constituted the whole value of an ἔμψυχον ὄργανον. The only differences in this 1 Cours, Part I., c. 8. respect between a freeman and a slave are, first, that the freeman sells himself, and only for a period, and to a certain extent; the slave may be sold by others and absolutely; and, secondly, that the personal qualities of the slave are a portion of the wealth of his master; those of the freeman, so far as they can be made the subjects of exchange, are a part of his own wealth. They perish indeed by his death, and may be impaired or destroyed by disease, or rendered valueless by any changes in the customs of the country, which shall destroy the demand for his services; but subject to these contingencies they are wealth, and wealth of the most valuable kind. The amount of revenue derived from their exercise in England far exceeds the rental of all the lands in Great Britain." So also "Even in our present state of civilization, which, high as it appears by comparison, is far short of what may easily be conceived, or even of what may confidently be expected, the INTELLECTUAL and MORAL CAPITAL of Great Britain far exceeds all her material capital, not only in importance but even in productiveness. The families that receive mere wages probably do not form a fourth of the community; and the comparatively larger amount of the wages even of these, is principally owing to the capital and skill with which their efforts are assisted and directed by the more educated members of the society. These who receive mere rent, even using that word in its largest sense, are still fewer: and the amount of rent, like that of wages, principally depends on the knowledge by which the gifts of nature are directed and employed. The bulk of the national revenue is profit; and of that profit the portion which is mere interest on material capital, probably does not amount to one-third. The rest is the result of personal capital, or in other words of education. "It is not on the accidents of the soil, or climate, or the existing accumulation of the material instruments of production, but on the quantity and the diffusion of this immaterial capital, that the wealth of a country depends. The climate, the soil, and the situation of Ireland have been described as superior, and certainly are not much inferior to our own. Her poverty has been attributed to the want of material capital; but were Ireland now to exchange her native population for seven millions of our 1 Political Economy, p. 134. English north countrymen, they would quickly create the capital that is wanted. And were England, North of Trent, to be peopled exclusively by a million of families from the west of Ireland, Lancashire and Yorkshire would still more rapidly resemble Connaught. Ireland is physically poor, because she is morally and intellectually poor. And while she continues uneducated, while the ignorance and violence of her population render persons and property insecure, and prevent the accumulation, and prohibit the introduction of capital, legislative measures, intended solely and directly to relieve her poverty, may not indeed be ineffectual, for they may aggravate the disease, the symptoms of which they are meant to palliate, but undoubtedly will be productive of no permanent benefit. Knowledge has been called power—it is far more certainly WEALTH. Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the northern coast of Africa, were once among the richest, and are now among the most miserable countries in the world, simply because they have fallen into the hands of a people without a sufficiency of the immaterial sources of wealth to keep up the material ones." 8. The question, indeed, whether services are wealth appears to us to be so clear that we can scarcely understand how any difficulty could be felt about it. But nevertheless diffi culties have been felt and objections made to including such immaterial products under the title of wealth, and therefore it is necessary to cite the opinions we have done, and afterwards to examine the objections made against them. Under this division comes the whole of labour of all sorts, and all persons earning an income by professions and employments of all sorts. It is evident that they give a certain amount of exertion, and receive in return for it payment. Their services, therefore, are of the same value to them as any material product. They are the subjects of taxation, and they contribute to the national revenue, just as much as if they were farmers or merchants. Smith says that a man is rich or poor according as he can command the necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments of life. It is evident, therefore, that those who can supply those " enjoyments" and are paid for it, are producers of wealth as much as the producers of material products. Of Incorporeal Property, or Wealth. 9. We now come to the last species of Exchangeable Quantities, of which Bank Notes and Bills of Exchange, included by Smith under the title of Capital, are the type-namely, abstract rights, wholly separated from any material substance. Now Property (Res) in Roman Law, and in every system of Law is divided into Corporeal and Incorporeal. Thus it is said in the Institutes of Justinian, L. II., t. 2: "Moreover some things (Res), or Property, are Corporeal and others Incorporeal. Things Corporeal are those which, by their nature, can be touched, such as land, a slave, clothes, gold, silver, and other things innumerable. Things Incorporeal are those which cannot be touched, such as those which consist in mere rights, as an inheritance, a usufruct, uses, and all obligations however contracted. Nor is it any objection that Corporeal things are contained in an inheritance; for fruits also which are gathered from land are corporeal; and that which is due on an obligation is usually corporeal, as land, a slave, money: but the right of inheritance, and the right of using and enjoying, and the right of the obligation are incorporeal." Now this Incorporeal Property, which was comparatively very small in ancient times, and even in Smith's time, was probably far inferior in magnitude to Corporeal Property, has since then assumed a gigantic development, and now exceeds many times the amount of Corporeal Property. It includes all such property as Bank Notes, Bills of Exchange, and other forms of Credit, Public Debts, Shares in Commercial Companies, Copyrights, Patents, the Practice of a Professional man, the Goodwill of a business, all species of Annuities, Tolls, Ferries, Advowsons, &c. All this stupendous mass of Incorporeal Property is expressly classed under the title of WEALTH in Roman Law, and in every system of Law, because it can all be bought and sold. So says Ulpian 1:- "Ea enim res est, quæ emi et venire potest. For that is Wealth which may be bought and sold. All species of Property, whether Corporeal or Incorporeal, were classed under "Res," "Bona," or "Pecunia" in the 1 Liber 34, ad Edict. |