of Optics to enumerate all the telescopes in a country. These are the statistics of their several subjects, and may have their interest and their use, but they form no part of the science of the subject.

If the arguments of Malthus were true, there could not be a Science of Economics until all things in a country had been catalogued, a doctrine as irrational as to say that there could not be a Science of Mechanics until all the machines in a country were numbered, nor a Science of Natural History until all animals were numbered, nor a Science of Optics until all the telescopes were numbered a doctrine which is obviously untenable.

It appears to us that the plainest principles of common sense are against the doctrines of Malthus. Economics treats of Exchanges. Now it is certain that, in this country at least, nineteen-twentieths of the Exchanges which take place are of immaterial and incorporeal quantities. Now it certainly appears to be repugnant to the plainest principles of science to exclude from the Science of Exchanges at least nineteen-twentieths of the Exchanges that actually occur.

On the common difficulty felt in admitting Immaterial and Incorporeal Elements into Economics.

16. The real difficulty which impedes the true comprehension of the subject is very similar to that which for a considerable time obstructed the reception of the Newtonian doctrine of gravity on the Continent. It had been laid down as a dogma from the days of the Greek Philosophers that a body cannot act where it is not. When, therefore, the Newtonian doctrine of central forces was published, shewing that the motions of the planets might be all accounted for by certain forces emanating from the sun and themselves, the opponents of the system maintained that it violated the fundamental principle that a body cannot act where it is not, and many of the most distinguished philosophers on the Continent, such as Leibnitz, Huyghens, J. Bernouilli, refused to receive it on that account.

A very much more specious dogma, however, is at the root of the common unwillingness among uninstructed writers to admit Immaterial and Incorporeal elements into Economics. From the days of Anaxagoras and Epicurus it has been handed

down from age to age by succeeding generations of physicists that Nothing can come out of Nothing, and that Nothing can go back into Nothing. The fundamental dogma of Lucretius, the hierophant of the Epicurean Philosophy, is that Nothing can come out of Nothing, I., 151:

"NULLAM REM E NIHILO GIGNI DIVINITUS UNQUAM

NIL igitur fieri de NILO posse fatendumst."

Moreover, that Nothing can go back into Nothing, I. 216, &c. : "Huc accedit uti quæque in sua Corpora rursum Dissolvat Natura, neque ad Nihilum interimat res.

Haud igitur penitus pereunt quæcunque videntur
Quando alid ex alio reficit Natura, nec ullam

Rem gigni patitur, nisi morte adjutum alienâ.”

And this is the constant refrain of the Lucretian Philosophy, that Nothing can be produced from Nothing, and that Nothing can go back into Nothing, I., 266, &c.:

"Nunc age res quoniam docui non posse creari
De Nihilo, neque item genitas ad Nil revocari.

At quoniam supera docui NIL posse creari

De Nihilo, neque quod genitumst ad Nil revocari
Esse immortali Primordia corpore debent."

And this is the identical doctrine which physicists maintain to the present-day. Chemists delight to expatiate to their audience on the indestructibility of all things. How, seeming destruction is merely the dissolution of atoms under their present combinations, to re-appear in new forms and new combinations in perpetual succession.

But Economics and Law confound the best settled doctrines of the sages of old. It is true that many Economists have declared that man can call nothing into existence, and that all wealth comes from the earth. That wealth is but the particles

of matter, and that all that man can do is to re-arrange them, or place them in a new position, and let Nature do the rest. But their own doctrines, their own books, their own definitions confound all such notions. Economists, with scarcely an exception, are now agreed that whatever can be exchanged, whatever can be bought and sold is wealth. Twenty-two centuries ago the author of the Eryxias irrefragably proved that KNOWLEDGE is WEALTH. Aristotle defines wealth to be everything whose value can be measured in money. Smith, Say. Whately, Senior, and Mill all admit the intellectual qualities and talents of the people to be Wealth.

Knowledge, therefore, by the very generality of the definition, and the consent of every modern Economist of note-is WEALTH. And where does knowledge come from? And what is it formed out of? Does it come from the earth, and is it formed out of the materials of the globe? We should imagine that few would maintain that. All that we know is that knowledge originates in the mind. Knowledge is formed in the mind, by great Labour very often; but is it formed out of the materials of the mind? And if so, what is the mind composed of? Does it come from the earth? Are we to have an atomic theory of knowledge, or of the mind? Will some metaphysical Dalton tell us that knowledge or the human mind is composed of indestructible primordial atoms?

Πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ, κοὐδὲν ἀνθρώπου δεινότερον πέλει. But this same knowledge- Whence cometh it? What is it? Whither goeth it?

We know not-Do our readers?

Nathless it is WEALTH: and, therefore, it is within the domain of the Economist. It may be bought and sold: it may be valued it may be accumulated: it may be handed down from age to age like any material product whatever. It is the produce of Labour just as much as any material product: every one of the great sciences is the product of the labour of innumerable toilers. The acquisition of knowledge is the acquisition of Wealth: and the loss of knowledge is the destruction of Wealth. And is the loss or destruction of knowledge the dissolution of indestructible primordial atoms? Here, then, are vast masses of Wealth; and the question is where does it come from? And what is it composed of? And there can be but

two answers to the question. Either knowledge is composed of indestructible primordial atoms, or it is not. If it be so, then of course the formation of knowledge is not the creation of Wealth out of nothing. But unless we are prepared to admit that—and who is?-the formation of knowledge must be the creation of Wealth out of nothing. And the loss or destruction of knowledge must be the DECREATION, or the return of Wealth into Nothing!

As one example of this out of thousands, we may take a case that was some years ago before the Scotch Courts. In the beginning of the 17th century, a man named Anderson discovered a way of making pills which soon became very popular. The secret of making these pills has been handed down from generation to generation, and has been a constant source of wealth to the possessors of it. Some years ago the owner of it became bankrupt, and his creditors claimed the right of having it given up to them, as part of the bankrupt's property. The pills have been analysed in vain by chemists, and the secret of their composition has never been able to be discovered. Now here is a manifest case of a trade secret-knowledge-being Wealth --and where did this wealth come from? And what is it com

posed of? Did it come from the earth?

And is it composed

of the materials of the globe? And yet it has been handed down as an heirloom from age to age. If the owner of the secret died without divulging it, there would be a manifest loss of Wealth. And what would become of it in that case? And this is only a particular example out of countless others. Trade secrets are expressly held in Law to be partnership assets.

Here, then, we have enormous masses of what every Economist, now-a-days, admits to be wealth, which overthrows the doctrine of the Physical Philosophers, that Nothing can come out of Nothing, and that Nothing can go back into Nothing. The doctrines of many Economists are equally overthrown, who say that all wealth comes from the earth, and that man cannot create wealth. For here we have great masses of wealth, which manifestly do not come from the earth, and are created by man. Hence it is manifest that there is another source of wealth besides the Earth, namely-the HUMAN MIND.

But the third species of Economic Quantities do not originate in the Earth, nor yet in the Mind. And here again we may

observe that Lucretius is at fault. For he says that there is nothing besides the void which is separated from something corporeal. I., 420, &c.

"Omnis ut est igitur, per se Natura duabus

Consistit rebus; nam CORPORA sunt et INANE.

Ergo præter INANE et CORPORA, tertia per se
Nulla potest rerum in numero Natura relinqui."

From these lines it is clear that Lucretius did not, live in the days of Public Debts, Bills of Exchange, and Bank Notes, Copyrights, Shares, and other Incorporeal Property, or he would have found it necessary to modify this part of his Philosophy. We have already shewn that the Roman Lawyers divided property into Corporeal and Incorporeal, and that the latter, consisting of pure abstract Rights, was classed as Wealth, just as much as the former. If Lucretius had applied to the Roman Lawyers of his day, they would have told him that there were abundance of RES INCORPORALES, which "faciebant" and "fungebantur" without any corpus at all. If he had got his friend Cicero to explain to him the system of Roman Banking, he would have found in it the overthrow of the fundamental dogma of his philosophy. And in every system of Law the same distinction of property exists. Now, Bank Notes, Bills of Exchange, &c., are separate, independent, exchangeable property, and, therefore, ex vi termini, and also by the express declaration of Roman Law-Wealth. And what are they? Simply credit -DEBTS. And where do these Debts come from? Do they come from the materials of the globe? Are they, too, formed of indestructible primordial atoms? When a debt is created, is it the combination of material atoms? And when it is extinguished, is it the dissolution of certain material particles to reappear under another form? Are debts even the products

of Labour and the Human Mind?

How is a debt created? By the mutual consent of two minds. By the mere fat of the Human Will. And how is a debt extinguished? By the mere fiat of the Human Will.